MovieChat Forums > moviefanatic505 > Replies
moviefanatic505's Replies
No you did not prove one thing. Objective means it can not be disputed. You said why you personally think Liv Tyler is a bad actress you did not prove it. This is a case of you not providing proof. It is your opinion her best performance is bad nothing more. In my opinion her best performance is good.
If it was a fact you wouldn't need to explain it you could prove it. Thing is you can't lol. I never said I could prove her acting to be good. Therefore burden of proof is on you. Since you can not provide proof thanks for the victory.
One they were rated individually by critics and users. They were released separately theatrically. So they all have it wrong and you have it right? Lastly the third definition says nothing about what you are describing. It says a group of three related things. Read the definition again and learn how to comprehend what you read.
Game set and match for me. Anything else or you done being humiliated?
According to you her best performance is bad. Which showcases that it is a subjective opinion. In my opinion her best performance is good.
See that is all I have to do in order to combat that. So no you did not prove a damn thing pal. The difference is I realize it is subjective. If it were objective I would not be able to dispute it. You lost on this one bud I am sorry.
It does fit number three. It is a group of three related things. The films were rated individually by critics and fans. Therefore next point.
It is your subjective opinion that if her best performance is Arwen that your career sucks. You claimed her to be objectively bad. I am still waiting on you to prove her to be objectively bad. So looks like unless you can prove it I won this round.
See thing is I never said I could prove her to be objectively good because I realize it is my opinion. You on the other hand think your opinion is fact and dug yourself a hole. The burden of proof is on you.
[quote]1.
a series or group of three plays, novels, operas, etc., that, although individually complete, are closely related in theme, sequence, or the like.
2.
(in ancient Greek drama) a series of three complete and usually related tragedies performed at the festival of Dionysus and forming a tetralogy with the satyr play.
3.
a group of three related things.[/quote]
[url]http://www.dictionary.com/browse/trilogy[/url]
Fits number 3 perfectly. We are not talking about the books we are talking about the films. Also again Tolkien was not alive when the films were made. So next point.
According to you her best performance is bad. That is subjective in my opinion her best performance is really good. See that is all I have to do in order to dispute it. So nope still not objective try again.
LOTR movies are a trilogy. Tolkien was not alive during the film's creation so next point. The movies were rated individually by critics and fans also were released separately theatrically. Again do all of them have it wrong and you have it right? Second it fits the textbook definition. Do you need me to provide a dictionary link for the definition of trilogy?
I do not expect to change your opinion. I just found it stupid how you listed how much money it made as a testament to the film's quality. Also how you cited it's spot on the top 250 of imdb. Money is not an indicator of quality. Neither is a movie's spot on the top 250 of imdb.
Still it would 3 bucks tops to redbox it, so you are still a moron for spending that much on it. Plus I have a strong feeling you're lying about not seeing it in theaters.
No you did not prove that she is objectively bad. If you had I would have no way of disputing it. You have only said well if LOTR is one of her better performances that is enough for me. That is an opinion not a fact try again my friend.
LOTR is a trilogy. It was released in separate entries theatrically and was rated separately by critics and users. So I am suppose to believe all the critics on earth and every person on earth got it wrong and you have it right? Second it fits the very definition of trilogy. I could provide the textbook definition but I figured you should know that.
JR Tolkien was not alive during the production of the films therefore we are throwing that right out of the window. We will not know how he views the films because he is unfortunately no longer with us.
The films and books are also not the same. Nice try though. Lets cut the BS. The reason you want to discredit it as a trilogy is because it beats TDK trilogy. If TDK trilogy beat it you would have no issue with people calling it a trilogy.
I do not give a crap if you like any of the third installments I listed. The point is I think they are better than TDKR. I have a right to consider Return of the King, The Bourne Ultimatum, Before Midnight and Toy Story 3 better than TDKR. You have the right to think TDKR is the best third installment ever. However when you crunch the numbers many other third entries beat it critically.
Should that change your mind? Nope but it is funny how you quickly cited TDKR spot on the top 250 of imdb and how much money it made. If you do not care that Bourne Ultimatum beats TDKR critically why should we care about TDKR spot on imdb and how much money it made? It shows you only cite data when it suits you, which makes you look lame.
I sincerely doubt you did not see it in theaters. However I will play along. You could have easily redboxed it or digitally rented it. Joke is on you for buying a movie without having seen it first. Good I am glad it did that to your childhood.
If she is objectively bad then prove it. I keep waiting and asking for the proof yet you will not provide any. Why is that? Oh that is right because you made an empty baseless claim. If something is objective you can prove it as an objective fact. Since you claimed she is objectively bad provide indisputable proof she is a bad actress. If you cannot then you have admitted defeat. I am giving you one more chance. Prove it or this round goes to me.
LOTR is in fact a trilogy. It was rated as separate entries. by the community and critics. Not to mention released separately in theaters. Even so what is the point of it is or not anyway? You are grasping at straws at this point.
I know why you are trying to denounce it as a trilogy. You are doing that because you know overall it bests TDK trilogy critically and by users. If you can eliminate LOTR it makes TDK trilogy look better. Here is the funny thing though LOTR is not the only trilogy that beats TDK trilogy critically.
The Before trilogy and the Toy Story trilogy actually beat TDK trilogy critically. Before Midnight, The Bourne Ultimatum, and Toy Story 3 are higher rated critically than TDKR is.
So I do not even have to use LOTR in order to prove that TDKR is not indisputable in terms of the third best entry ever in my book. Those other third entries are better in my opinion.
That trap being that it told a story we had already seen before with that specific character. Richard Donner did the origin of Superman and Raimi did the origin of Spider-man. Both of them did a great job also. So why redo it? Did they think they would be able to replicate the impact when those two did it? Did they think they could do it better?
The reason why Batman Begins worked so well was because it told a story with Batman we had not seen before. We had never seen Batman's origin before it only ever got alluded to in the Burton films, it was never delved into. So that made Batman Begins fresh and original. You did not have to compare it to Burton's because it used a new story blueprint.
Spider-man Homecoming while I was not crazy about I thought was good. Thing is the director said there was one rule going in to making it. If it was done in a previous Spider-man film we are not doing it. Wasn't it nice to see a different take on Spider-man as opposed to seeing an origin you have seen already?
Man of Steel should have taken that same approach. Superman's origins have been told, no need to do it again. The reason not to do it again is because lets face it Donner killed it and you will not be able to outdo his origin take on the character.
Here is what killed me okay if they were going to do the origin again why not change up the villain at the very least? Nope Zod again! Seeing him sentenced to the phantom zone again! Such a missed opportunity to use Brainiac! Brainiac we have not seen ever before on the big screen. He creates a physical threat as well as intellectual and has roots to his Kryptonian planet. Literally he is like a perfect villain on all fronts.
Man of Steel is Batman Begins, Superman 1 and 2 put into a blender. It almost was a borderline remake of Superman 1 and 2 just subtract Lex Luthor and change the tone. As opposed to the uplifting lighthearted cheese tone Donner had make it dreary, realistic and gritty.
The film looks great and some of the music and casting is solid. Unfortunately though I felt it was lazy. Sorry just my two cents.
I am glad someone else appreciates Donner's Superman like I do. Thing is people need to realize that is truly what showed the world doing a superhero on the big screen was possible. Tons of film makers such as Raimi and Nolan have used that as an influence in their films. They have often cited him also. I mean lets face it Raimi's first two Spider-man films basically replicate Donner's Superman films to a T. Watch Superman 1 and 2, then watch Spider-man 1 and 2 you will notice the story blueprint is strikingly similar. Raimi did a great job though, I love the first two Spider-man movies. The fact that with Superman they had limited technology and were able to make him come to life as well as they did is outstanding.
That is the thing 18 movies in I have became fatigued. Will I still watch the good ones of course, but the fact that it feels like a tv show on the biog screen is a little off putting. Thor the Dark world had awful juvenile humor, and a forced cliched romance I have seen done a dozen times before on tv. The romance bewteen Thor and Jane is not magical like Reeve and Kidder, or Maguire and Dunst it is just sappy and silly. The film was so forgettable as well. I could not sit through that film again.
Nolan's Batman trilogy was terrific. Thing is with The Dark Knight Rises is it had an impossible task. Topping the Dark Knight is virtually impossible. Thing is though I still think The Dark Knight Rises is a solid film as is Batman Begins. Just because something isn't quite as good as it's predecessor does not mean it is a bad film. Not topping the Dark Knight is fine at least it gave a solid finale. Unlike Spider-man 3...
The DCU is a joke, in my book the only film of out of that batch I have liked is Wonder Woman.
No your tangent is cool.
I respect that you liked Man of Steel I on the other hand did not.
The reason being is because it fell into the exact same trap amazing Spider-man did.
I see your point. Thing is though I guess I felt some mcu movies were overrated. Are there gems yes but I swear that some are mediocre at best get critical acclaim and i am shocked at times.
I always felt movies like Blade, and Blade 2 are fun entertaining flicks. Do I think they are masterpieces no but fun movies. Thing is the critical response is simply eh they are okay. Where it feels like if it had the mcu logo on it they would receive praise like crazy.
Films like Thor the dark world, iron man 2, avengers age of ultron I think are mediocre and borderline on falling on the bad side of average.
Yet those films get better acclaim than Blade or Blade 2 it leaves me scratching my head at times.
Now the gems like Iron Man 1, Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy are terrific.
I like Donner's Superman more than the entire mcu thus far. I hate how it's forgotten about. Sin city gets neglected also. Spider-Man 2 as well.
So you did not see the Force Awakens in theaters? I highly doubt that.
Liv Tyler is good in a few films not just LOTR. I never said she was only good in LOTR. I said that was one of the films she was good in. Anyhow I am still waiting on proof of how she is objectively bad.
You do not even know the definition of objective. Since you do not know just quit while you're ahead man.
I do not like either of those films. You just admitted to owning those films, so looks like the joke is on you. I do not own them because I did not enjoy them. So again you made yourself look ignorant.
Why own something you dislike? You're simply salty that you got beat in a debate. Since you are salty now it is time to do your favorite thing project. This is embarrassing. Seriously are you okay man?
Own up to the fact that you made an empty statement. You misused the word objective because you are too dumb to know the difference between subjective and objective.
Lmao! As I thought you can not prove your statement. If it was objective you would be able to provide concrete facts. If someone asks me how many points Michael Jordan has I can without hesitation provide them how many he has.
I can because it as an objective fact. You can not dispute it. Now you made two claims I am objectively bad because I disagree with you? Again you will have no problem proving that right? I disagree with you get over it. I never claimed you to be stupid for having a differing opinion.
In your opinion Liv Tyler is a bad actress it stops there. It is not objective. I never said the academy or any opinion I have had was objective.
So thanks this debate has been fun. Go back to school and learn what the word objective means.
Lol wow you really are dense aren't you. I am not the one who claimed she was [b]objectively[/b] good. You on the other hand claimed she was objectively bad. I never said it to be anymore than my opinion where as you did. Therefore the burden of proof is on you my friend. Since it is objective give me factual proof that I can not dispute that she is bad.
No Katie Holmes nor Natalie Portman performed better than Liv Tyler not in my book.
I am the one who lacks intelligence yet I know the difference between subjective and objective where as you clearly don't.
Either way he has had several chances. Jackson won far earlier into his career than Nolan did.
If Liv Tyler is objectively horrible then you can prove it without me being able to dispute it. I can name several where she performed well Lord of the Rings being one of them. Anyhow the burden of proof is on you since you claimed it to be objective. So go ahead prove it.
I do understand what she brings to the plot. I never said she was bad I simply was showing you she is not part of the comics at all. Nolan deviated from the source material also.
In my book it did add to the plot. It showed that Aragorn was a noble man with dignity. He loved her and did not step out on her. She chose a mortal life because he was such a good man.
How many Oscars has Nolan won again?
You have not even heard my analysis on Pulp Fiction or TDKR. So no you do not understand you assumed. You would rather inflict an assumption on me because in your deluded brain no one can disagree with you without being ignorant. Answer this question is it possible to fully understand TDKR and Pulp Fiction and not think they are good? Answer that. You will probably side step it like you did the last time. You like to project I noticed.
Aragorn and Arwen have far better chemistry than Annakin and Padme. I did not cringe once watching them where as I did the whole time with Annakin and Padme. You proved objectively that she is horrible? Do you know the definition of objective? Here me let me help you.
[quote](of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.[/quote]
An objective fact would be something that can not be disputed.
A stat in basketball for instance. Michael Jordan has scored 32292 regular season points in his entire NBA career. No amount of disagreeing will change that. That is an objective fact you can not dispute it. Now since it is objective provide factual proof that Liv Tyler is a bad actress. All I have to do is disagree and your point falls apart. In short you did not prove a damn thing.
You side stepped another point I made. Answer the question is Rachael Dawes part of the comic book mythos? I said nothing about her death I asked about her. Nice attempt at trying to veer off topic.
I actually kind of feel sorry for you that you are not able to appreciate Jackon's genius. Oh well guess even Jackson can't please everyone.
Okay it needs to be said you are a closed minded person. You are condescending. So it is impossible to understand Pulp Fiction and TDKR and dislike them? I actually like both films but I find both to films to be overrated. Did I ever say you did not understand Return of the King? Nope because I realize some people have different opinions. However since you want to play that game I will also. I do not think you understand Return of the King and if you did you would like it more.
No the romance between Annakin and Padme was dreadful. It has been made fun of and mocked so many times it is not even funny. Aragorn and Arwen have amazing chemistry. Funny how it has not been mocked like Annakin and Padme.
No he took what he could get from them. Again lack of foresight which is something even the most intelligent men in history have made the mistake of doing.
The Dark Knight movies are not as well made as LOTR. Not in my book. Peter Jackson can direct action much better than Nolan can. The choreography in the LOTR movies was far better handled. The choreography in TDKR was not well staged or choreographed. Actually in taking mma Batman and Bane fight the exact way you are instructed not to in martial arts. I can feed you films with far greater choreography than that one. A film where the fighting in the background is dreadful and thugs fall without being touched. Also thugs for some reason run up to batman when they have a gun in their hands? Does that make any sense?
I felt not one thing for Annakin. I laughed when he got sliced in half. Lucas made Vader into a spoiled brat. Let me tell you Vader would say things like it's not fair!
You really need to not watch anything deep or thought provoking, I am guessing most things go straight over your head. Stick to Batman movies where action is dreadfully done. Problem is I have read comics that are far better Batman stories than TDKR.
Batman is smart for some reason not so much in TDKR. Why is Rachael Dawes in those films anyway? Does she exist in the comics? Nope she was added in for a forced lame romance. The comics are far better than Nolan's films. A romance thrown in just for the sake of it.
Again I am not ripping on TDK trilogy but the way it directs fight scenes and how much exposition there is I can not forgive. LOTR seems to not have that problem.
Um no. Lord of the Rings did everything better than the prequels of Star Wars did. I seriously can not believe I am arguing this. The acting better in the prequels? Seriously with Hayden Christensen's awful performance as Annakin? A performance so bad it ruined one of cinema's most iconic villains. Better writing?
Name me lines as bad as this.
I hate sand it is rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere.
Don't make me kill you!
You're so beautiful it is only because I am so in love no it is only because I am so in love with you.
Annakin chancellor Palpatine is evil. From my point of view the Jedi are evil.
Annakin and Padme's relationship went nowhere and was a giant plothole. The whole reason Annakin went to the dark side was to try and save Padme's life. Then he tries to kill her. In one foul swoop you betrayed your villain's motivations completely. So no on that front you are wrong again. Not to mention their chemistry was agonizing to sit through. With LOTR the romance was not the focus of the story where as Annakin and Padme were. Funny thing is the romance is better in LOTR and it is not even the soul focus of the film. Aragorn and Arwen have far more chemistry than Annakin and Padme.
Oh so you're one of those people. You disliked a movie I held in high regard therefore because you disliked it you must not understand it. Funny thing is I never assumed you did not understand Return of the King, I just realized your opinion was different. I understood Pulp Fiction perfectly. I just never thought it was what it was cracked up to be. You realize people can understand a highly regarded film and still dislike it right? Please tell me you are smart enough to realize this. I am starting to wonder about you.
Nice passive aggressive insult. So since I like Return of the King and you do not you assume I lack intelligence. Quite classy.
Lacking foresight does not make you a dumbass. It shows you have a flaw as a character which often grounds the character.
Have tact next time. You debate like a 14 year old kid. Oh and I love Gimili in Return of the King he is hilarious.
Lord of the Rings on the same level as the Star Wars prequels lol nice joke.
Also no Mystic River and Lost in Translation were terrific.
I am not going to humor your pulp fiction point because it is hypothetical. I do not argue hypotheticals it is pointless.
Pulp Fiction is nothing special in my book I think Return of the King is better.
Not to mention since when does lacking foresight make you a dumbass? Tons of the greatest heroes in cinema have lacked foresight as have intelligent people in life. So nope can't agree on that sorry.
And as I pointed out I disagree with your notion that 2003 was a bad year for films. Mystic River and Lost in Translation were amazing films in my book.
Second now you are speaking hypothetically. You think Pulp Fiction would have beaten Return of the King you can not prove that therefore why should I humor that?
Arguing hypothetical scenarios is stupid. Bottom line it won several huge Oscars that were not technical. No matter how hard you try you can not take that away.
It is a fact that according to imdb it is the 65th greatest film ever. It is also a fact that Return of the king is higher rated than TDKR. Funny how you do not list Return of the King's spot on imdb I wonder why?
As I said citing imdb means nothing the top 250 is a joke. A site where boosting of ratings occur.
You complained about the Ghost army. Thing is Aragorn released them because he is a man of honor. He promised them if they helped with that battle he would release them. Had he gone back on his word that would have completely betrayed what Aragorn is about.
Had he had more foresight he would have used them for more but as in life sometimes we do not always have the best foresight now do we?
Aragorn is a man of honor and nobility.