New to the Big Screen

Petrie. · **Reply #100 on:** March 21, 2006, 04:42:42 PM

I meant that in a good way Malte.

Shrek 2 is the ONLY sequel that I have seen that I actually liked more than the original.

WeirdRaptor · **Reply #101 on:** March 21, 2006, 08:59:56 PM

Quote

To be honest Raptor, that's all film making is. It's a business market set up in order for companies to make money. That's exactly what it is if you boil it down.

If that's what you honestly think: you're very naive.

Quote

LBT is no different. If something is deemed profitable, you make more of them so more people buy/invest into the company's services or buy their product. It's down to the people who watch films. Whether you like it or not is not their problem if you've already forked out to see it in the cinema and so many 1000s of others have as well. The film companies have got what they want.

Yes, the companies, not the filmmakers in many cases.

Quote

As for liking sequels, again it's down to the person's own individual perception and willingness of acceptance.

And there people go again, calling me close-minded, dumb, and unwilling to accept, just because I'm not a fan of sequels in general. Thanks. Thanks a lot. That's going to get me to agree oh so quickly.

Quote

I for one reckon that a sequel CAN outmatch its original counterpart (I use that term loosely).

Yeah, when hell freezes over. And especially not in this case. The original "Ice Age" had a wonderful setting and story, and they wrapped the story up so completely that a sequel like this is nothing but a joke and an insult.

Quote

New directors on a scene don't necessarily cast a doomed shadow over a movie's sequel but again that's MY personal opinion...I can't change people's views (neva plan to) but if it's something that you liked first time round, I can't see the logic in thinking that the next instalment is gonna be inferior.

One: The film already looks very, very stupid. Two: only the original director can bring "Ice Age" to life the way it deserves. Three: replacement directors are never, ever able to make a project better than before, unless you're that moron who directed the first two "Harry Potter" films, in which case just about anyone else would be better than you.

Quote

I wooda thought that if you enjoyed the first one, it would give you the drive to interested by more that are released. To me that just sounds...well...prejudice. Make your judgement AFTER you've seen it.

I did enjoy the first one, but this sequel is right up there in the "most unnecessary sequels" list. Oh, and I make MY judgments when I frikkin want to!

Oh, and I also hated "Shrek 2", people.

Littlefoot1616 · **Reply #102 on:** March 22, 2006, 07:07:58 PM

Raptor...what your deal with immediately going on the defensive neither concerns me nor does it infringe me in the slightest. So, in light of that, let's talk...

Before you consider my naiveity...perhaps you should think about the idea. If movies were not made for obtaining profit then why should we pay for them? What's the point in them folking out excess of millions for making films for the general public if it wasn't for the concept of raking in profits from it. A-list producers, actors etc all raking in millions for what they put on show. Businesses are set up to make money...tell me I'm a liar? I seriously reckon it's someone else who need to quit being so blissfully ignorant.

Quote

And there people go again, calling me close-minded, dumb, and unwilling to accept, just because I'm not a fan of sequels in general. Thanks. Thanks a lot. That's going to get me to agree oh so quickly.

Where you got that assumption from I don't know...neither do I care. I never called you close-minded nor did I imply it. My statement was highlighting tha fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Which links nicely to the next point on sequels and their originals. I specifically said "I" reckon they can (my personal opinion). That comes plain and simple as it is. You either agree or disagree. That then allows the potential for a debate...but there's no need to flare up and get snappy about it. There happens to be a distinct difference between a debate and an argument.

Your opinions, judgements and views are all yours Raptor but maybe you should consider thinking about what you say before you actually say it... Why light a match in a room you can smell gas?! If you don't want people to think of you as "close-minded" etc. then don't take other people's opinions to heart. Just coz one person says something is good doesn't mean others are gonna agree. But you're gonna start taking it personally then don't expect others to shine upon...coz I certainly don't.

Malte279 · **Reply #103 on:** March 23, 2006, 02:41:35 AM

Quote

If that's what you honestly think: you're very naive.

If it is not about money (and if anyone who thinks so is to be considered naive) I beg you to tell us what you think movie business is all about? Just movie makers in a selfless ambition to create good movies without any material interests? I must say that sounds (don't mean to offend you) naive to me.

Quote

And there people go again, calling me close-minded, dumb, and unwilling to accept, just because I'm not a fan of sequels in general. Thanks. Thanks a lot. That's going to get me to agree oh so quickly.

:blink: I must be very unattentive indeed if I didn't even notice such offenses against you were written. Please quote the lines where anyone is calling you close-minded or dumb. While NOBODY here wrote anything but their own opinions often stressing that it was opinion without any claim of it being general truth (if you want me to quote lines for examples that is no problem at all). It is YOU WR who started calling people naive and claim to be attacked by them. Maybe you fancy yourself in such a role as a poor misunderstood victim whom everyone dislikes, alas it is simply not reality. Nobody attacked you here! So get a grip, represent you opinion and do NOT attack anyone else.

WeirdRaptor · **Reply #104 on:** March 23, 2006, 07:42:13 AM

Quote

If it is not about money (and if anyone who thinks so is to be considered naive) I beg you to tell us what you think movie business is all about? Just movie makers in a selfless ambition to create good movies without any material interests? I must say that sounds (don't mean to offend you) naive to me.

Yeah, its about the money to the executives at the film companies, but to the filmmakers, themselves, its about creating good movies. You don't get films like "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is it were just for the money.

Quote

As for liking sequels, again it's down to the person's own individual perception and willingness of acceptance.

If you weren't implying that I was close-minded, then why is there is a comment about "willingness to accept" in there? Eh? I've had things like that implied far too often to not look for something between the lines. Paranoid, perhaps, but better safe than sorry.

Petrie. · **Reply #105 on:** March 23, 2006, 09:46:25 AM

I think we can all agree on this logic:

Filmmaking/directing a film is a job. What do you do at a job? Making money so you can buy the necessities of life, blah blah blah.

What does Speilberg do this for? A hobby? A good feeling? No frickin way! He makes good money because he makes good films.

WeirdRaptor · **Reply #106 on:** March 23, 2006, 12:06:24 PM

And I've never really considered Spielberg a real filmmaker.

Littlefoot1616 · **Reply #107 on:** March 23, 2006, 02:39:52 PM

Quote

Yeah, its about the money to the executives at the film companies, but to the filmmakers, themselves, its about creating good movies. You don't get films like "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is it were just for the money.

Money, reputation, award winnings...it's all part of status building. Becoming the biggest player in the market. It's all competition. That's what businesses do. Compete for consumers' money. Money to a business is the equivilent to blood to a living creature. No money...no business...it is that simple.

Quote

If you weren't implying that I was close-minded, then why is there is a comment about "willingness to accept" in there? Eh? I've had things like that implied far too often to not look for something between the lines.

That comment was generic Raptor...not specific to you. People have different tolerance levels to different things and that tends to be their source for drawing on personal opinions. If you don't think that sequels are exactly Godly decrees then that's your opinion mate. That's your entitlement and no one can take that from you. But in light of what's been said, it's almost sounds like your fishing for sympathy. There was no need for an argument to kick up over this...there really wasnt.

WeirdRaptor · **Reply #108 on:** March 23, 2006, 09:26:42 PM

I was not "fishing for sympathy", I'm just very suspicious of people in general.

Correction. That's what you think filmmaking is about. Its not about that to indie filmmakers, who'd have a much better chance of making money off a regular job than making films the way they do.
And if you think that filmmaking is only about money, reputation, and such, then you haven't the slightest idea of what goes into a film.

action9000 · **Reply #109 on:** March 24, 2006, 12:13:55 AM

As an outsider in this conversation, I'm seeing the largest arguements are revolving around the amount of closed-minded language being used: "Only", "always", "all", "never", etc. If there is one thing I've learned from years of Social Studies and English essays, such words lead to many arguements, as they are rarely true.

Filmmakers, and anyone else for that matter, generally have more than one reason for doing something. For many of them, a career and money making opportunity is an important reason, but it's not going to be the only reason. Who would go ito film making if they didn't have some sort of desire to do so? Film makers, like any other artist, treat their work with respect, and only hope that the public shares this respect for their art. If the public appreciates it, the film maker is rewarded both financially and psychologically. His art did something good for the world, at least through the eyes of the people who watched and enjoyed the film. Like any career, money is one reason to get involved in film making, however the love of the art is bound to be one of the major drives to invest in such a career.

F-14 Ace · **Reply #110 on:** March 24, 2006, 12:16:17 AM

Why on earth are we rguing about this? Did I start this? All I said was that I wanted to see Ice Age 2. It turned into an argument. Lets get back on subject, people.

action9000 · **Reply #111 on:** March 24, 2006, 01:21:20 AM

Lol that's what I was wondering!

Ice Age was awesome

Cyberlizard · **Reply #112 on:** March 25, 2006, 11:38:06 PM

Does anyone think there is serious competition between Dreamworks Animation Studios and Pixar? I do because there are so many ways they are ripping eachother off. First, Pixar makes finding Nemo and it's a huge hit. Dreamworks thinks they should make an underwater fish movie too to gain more popularity and they come out with Shark Tale. Then DW comes out with Madagascar, and now Pix is coming out with The Wild, which appears to be very similar, what with animals escaping from the Central Park Zoo and telling from the plotline, it looks more like Madagascar in reverse. I believe Pixar and Dreamworks go together as well as Coke and Pepsi in my opinion.

And BY THE WAY, WR, I'm still holding the fact against you that you called me an idiot in my genre topic, just because I don't like what you like. You need to WAKE UP! I FEEL LIKE I'M ARGUING WITH MY DAD HERE! DAMN IT!

F-14 Ace · **Reply #113 on:** March 26, 2006, 12:48:02 AM

:mad Can we drop this argument now? Lets get back o subject.
(btw, welcome back, Cyberlizard.

)

Cyberlizard · **Reply #114 on:** March 26, 2006, 01:02:55 AM

Thanks. I took the worst vacation EVER. I was going to California so my Mom can go to College and visit some relatives, when our early flight to Salt Lake was delayed. So we had to take off at night and I got the stomach flu on the way over there. I was vomiting in the mens room when we got there, and we missed our flight to Burbank by fifteen minutes. Then we had to spend the night in Salt Lake at the Hilton, and what a terrible night THAT was.

I was vomiting all over the place in the middle of the night, anything I ate came back up. I starved myself all next day and I went to visit my dad in Santa Paula. He took us to Midevil Times the next day and boy did I regret THAT because I was up all night again, VOMITING MY HEAD OFF.

I was feeling better the next day when dad took us to Disneyland. I only managed to visit Tomorrowland WHEN THE DAMN VIRUS ATTACKS ME AGAIN. THEN I SPEND THE REMAINING SIX HOURS IN THE PARKING GARAGE, SLEEPING IN THE CAR.

Finally, the next day I was feeling better and me and my sister left the RV park my dad stays at and we go visit some best friends in central California. The rest of the trip went uphill from there. But I just got back today and I'm glad to be home.

F-14 Ace · **Reply #115 on:** March 26, 2006, 01:36:12 AM

Sounds like a real crappy experience. Sorry to hear that. :huh:

Cyberlizard · **Reply #116 on:** March 26, 2006, 02:05:19 AM

It wasn't all that bad. I accidentally left out that I went to the Ronald Regan Library and Museum. I went to see the new Air Force One exhibit they got there.

F-14 Ace · **Reply #117 on:** March 26, 2006, 02:06:44 AM

Sweet!

Cyberlizard · **Reply #118 on:** March 26, 2006, 02:21:51 AM

They had the real Air Force One on display and you got to go inside it. There was also an F-14 Tomcat on display outside.

WeirdRaptor · **Reply #119 on:** March 26, 2006, 08:01:16 AM

Sounds like a vacation I took to Jamaica. I had an ear infection on an airplace...while it was taking off.

: :blink:

Imagine the pain. I was pain...pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain...ect. There were not words for it.

One thing I'm looking forward to "V for Vandetta".