 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Marty McFly said it best...."HE'S AN ASSHOLE....I don't care what Tannen says"
let's just all strive to get along. If you disagree with someone or don't like someone there's a big ignore button.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 10, 2011 - 6:26 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
let's just all strive to get along. If you disagree with someone or don't like someone there's a big ignore button.
You're absolutely right on that.
I do find it really amusing that no one responds to the long-form, well-written tear-apart of the thread I wrote but people just love to jump in front of the bus when I response to Thor as a person, even after he gives a couple people the finger with the "You just don't get it" response to bdm and the "THIS IS NOT ABOUT TREK!" snark to others. Yeah, I'm the jerk.
Okay, thats it. Wiping my hands of (with?) this thread.
Lehah, I've had you on ignore for a long time, then I put you back (you seem to behave ok for a while), but you can't help but resort to your bully self righteous behaviour. The fact that you'd even write a 'long-form well written tear-apart' post in a thread that clearly has plenty of responses and discussion, is more evidence that you are nothing but a low life provocateur. You need people to respond to your long winded post as you probably get off from seeing people takes sides or cheer you on.
I know a lot of people don't like Thor, but at least they have the common courtesy to not attack him. And I'm sorry, but why is someone like you allowed on this board when it is clear that personal attacks are against the rules? Yet, you can't help but resort to that behavior time after time. Go figure.
You are amongst the bunch of people who claim Thor messes up threads or ruins the FSM board, something that has taken on a life outside of the FSM board believe it or not, as I have FSM members in my facebook who have nothing else to do than start facebook threads about Thor (talk about obsessive behavior and boys club mentality behind someone's back). But it is YOU who's ruining threads time after time.
It's becoming a joke really, and I'm tired of hearing the same punchline over and over.
And I'm sure you got off from this reaction, as it's probably what you wanted in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 10, 2011 - 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Thor, why the hell did you start this thread in the first place?
As I said in the first post, I was sick at the time, and thought it would be entertaining and pass time to dissect a franchise which was never really intended to hold together as a singular narrative in the first place. And to point out said inconsistencies, just for the heck of it. Always fun to "arrest" sloppy or careless screenwriting, continuity goofs etc. 
As someone who's favorite movie is the original APES since I first saw it in April '68 when I was eight, I think it's best to look at these movies in this way; there's the original film, and then there's everything else -- and it's inferior to the original, even RISE. The Boulle novel that everything is based on, and the '68 film are basically a black joke that once told is never as fresh as the first time.
The makeups in the original helped make that film unique, and now CGI is doing the same for RISE, but this time they left out the allegory, and it's social allegory and political satire that APES is really about. If there's a sequel, my hope is they remember this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 10, 2011 - 11:52 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
johnbijl
(Member)
|
Thanks, bdm, although most of your replies are based on your own speculation and not inherent in the narrative itself. Also, remember that I'm talking about the franchise as a whole and how it holds together (or not) as one singular narrative. Allegory doesn't excuse narrative flaws in that respect.
Thor, why the hell did you start this thread in the first place?
As I said in the first post, I was sick at the time, and thought it would be entertaining and pass time to dissect a franchise which was never really intended to hold together as a singular narrative in the first place. And to point out said inconsistencies, just for the heck of it. Always fun to "arrest" sloppy or careless screenwriting, continuity goofs etc.
Yes, I know that. But I find it frustrating that you 'explain away' the reactions to your observations and interpretations -- even if (when!) they are 4 years old. It seems... belittling. And as if your unwilling to discuss them. On a discussion board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thor, why the hell did you start this thread in the first place?
As I said in the first post, I was sick at the time, and thought it would be entertaining and pass time to dissect a franchise which was never really intended to hold together as a singular narrative in the first place. And to point out said inconsistencies, just for the heck of it. Always fun to "arrest" sloppy or careless screenwriting, continuity goofs etc.
As someone who's favorite movie is the original APES since I first saw it in April '68 when I was eight, I think it's best to look at these movies in this way; there's the original film, and then there's everything else -- and it's inferior to the original, even RISE. The Boulle novel that everything is based on, and the '68 film are basically a black joke that once told is never as fresh as the first time.
The makeups in the original helped make that film unique, and now CGI is doing the same for RISE, but this time they left out the allegory, and it's social allegory and political satire that APES is really about. If there's a sequel, my hope is they remember this.
This is a very insightful observation. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 10, 2011 - 1:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Gunnar
(Member)
|
As someone who's favorite movie is the original APES since I first saw it in April '68 when I was eight, I think it's best to look at these movies in this way; there's the original film, and then there's everything else -- and it's inferior to the original, even RISE. The Boulle novel that everything is based on, and the '68 film are basically a black joke that once told is never as fresh as the first time.
The makeups in the original helped make that film unique, and now CGI is doing the same for RISE, but this time they left out the allegory, and it's social allegory and political satire that APES is really about. If there's a sequel, my hope is they remember this.
I totally agree with you regarding the original film. One of my favourite SF films of the past few years was DISTRICT 9, exactly because it also went for allegory and satire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 10, 2011 - 2:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Thanks, bdm, although most of your replies are based on your own speculation and not inherent in the narrative itself. Also, remember that I'm talking about the franchise as a whole and how it holds together (or not) as one singular narrative. Allegory doesn't excuse narrative flaws in that respect.
Thor, why the hell did you start this thread in the first place?
As I said in the first post, I was sick at the time, and thought it would be entertaining and pass time to dissect a franchise which was never really intended to hold together as a singular narrative in the first place. And to point out said inconsistencies, just for the heck of it. Always fun to "arrest" sloppy or careless screenwriting, continuity goofs etc.
Yes, I know that. But I find it frustrating that you 'explain away' the reactions to your observations and interpretations -- even if (when!) they are 4 years old. It seems... belittling. And as if your unwilling to discuss them. On a discussion board.
Explain away?!? I'm afraid I don't understand.
I think it's great for people to try answering the questions I put up, but of course they need to be motivated by what there actually is in the narrative, not speculation based on your own theories. If a person changes jacket from one scene to the next, that's a continiuty error worth pointing out, even though you could easily say something like "ah, but maybe he threw himself into another jacket off-screen, between the shots!" or something to that effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 11, 2011 - 11:07 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
johnbijl
(Member)
|
Explain away?!? I'm afraid I don't understand.
I think it's great for people to try answering the questions I put up...
Let me try to clarify.
Reading your answers, every post you made after every substantial response can be summarized as 'no' or 'that's your point of view' or 'psshhht'. I'm certain that wasn't your intention (having talked with you before) but it sure as hell comes across like that. It's not... constructive. In fact, you sound more annoyed than contented.
...but of course they need to be motivated by what there actually is in the narrative, not speculation based on your own theories.
Of course not! The narrative *is* lacking! To make it fit you have to extrapolate. Even by speculation, ret-conning and pure and blunt imagination. It's what every (paid!) writer for Star Trek, Star Wars, James Bond, Transformers, Spiderman, Friends, Cheers/Frasier or whatever franchise you can come up with is doing when he or she is contributing to a story line or a set universe. That's what boards dedicated to these franchises and con's and fan meetings are for! (sort a)
If a person changes jacket from one scene to the next, that's a continiuty error worth pointing out, even though you could easily say something like "ah, but maybe he threw himself into another jacket off-screen, between the shots!" or something to that effect.
Although probably not a clear one, there's a line between continuity errors and open questions. But you know that, because you selected your observations carefuly and skipped that the female astronaut's arms change position even though she's dead, that Taylor's handwriting is is drastically different on the both notes he writes while unable to speak or what ever.
And may I finally point out that you formulated them as questions? And questions, unlike mere observations, always tend to instigate answers. And when people provide them, you could have made better posts than the... peevish ones here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 11, 2011 - 11:24 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Reading your answers, every post you made after every substantial response can be summarized as 'no' or 'that's your point of view' or 'psshhht'. I'm certain that wasn't your intention (having talked with you before) but it sure as hell comes across like that. It's not... constructive. In fact, you sound more annoyed than contented.
Well, I can promise you that that's only what you read into it. No annoyment here. I phrased them as questions because that's how you usually phrase such things. Some of them are rhetorical, others are genuine questions adressed to people who may have noticed some explanation in the films that I missed. There have actually been a couple of replies that cleared things up that way (the scarecrows, for example), so that's cool.
Mostly, though, the "holes" are what they are, and can only be taken as such. The entertainment was more in finding them and pointing them out than having people conjure up theories inside their own heads as explanation. More as "hey, check out how this franchise falls apart from a continuity viewpoint!" rather than "hey, please create some fan fiction to tie together a franchise that otherwise would not".
If you get my drift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
