MovieChat Forums > Roguemail
Roguemail (1627)
Posts
The Batman and the Batmobile.
A Soldiers Story 1984.
A Soldiers Story question.
Street Smart 1987.
Faraday and Co
Tenet review
Agenda to shut these boards down?
Question about Ouija boards
63 Up
The Sugarland Express
View all posts >
Replies
Of course it's happening...post production means the filming is finished and they are probably working on the special effects, CGI etc.
Empire magazine ran an article showing stills from the movie, and other publications will probably do the same.
From the look of it, it seems to emphasise flying craft/hybrid creatures of some sort, as well as fiery forests.
Can't say I am psyched for it...I was extremely bored by the last one.
Yeah...but does he know that?
It's a teaser trailer. Many of the effects will still need refining, as it looks with the Thing costume.
And there are a few action scenes shown, albeit briefly.
But you're not going to get much in the way of major action and effects at this stage.
None, and no one is saying that the burglars were justified in what they did. But that does not mean you are justified in shooting them in the back. As was proven in this case.
You still can't grasp the fact that what he did was not justified in the eyes of the law, and he was convicted of manslaughter by the courts. It does not matter that you think Martin was right.
Whether you think that's right or wrong, it does not matter. That's just your opinion. Martin had his day in court and he lost.
Oh dear. It obviously needs saying again...shooting a person in the back with a shotgun is a premeditated act intended to seriously wound or kill. And a person who was outside the property and running away.
I support any persons right to defend themselves and their property, but you can't just shoot someone blindly when they are clearly not a threat to you.
You are probably one of those people who think if you catch a person inside your property you can pretty much do what you want to them.
Newsflash - you have to be able to prove the person was a threat to your life, and you had no choice but to kill to defend yourself.
Martin had no such defence and the courts rightly found him guilty. Also, Martin had been spoken to before about having illegal guns by police.
And frankly, if he had not let his property get into such a ruinous state and made an effort to make his property secure, he would not have been in that situation.
But no...he left his windows open, sat in the dark with a shotgun and shot a burglar in the back while running away. No jury in the world is going to pass a not guilty verdict on that one.
He shot him in the back as he was running away, with an illegal shotgun.
That's not the act of a "hero".
Also, Martin kept his farmhouse in a rundown state, and as such attracted burglars who were easily able to get into it.
On the night in question, Martin sat at the top of the stairs in the with the gun, when the boys entered he shot. One escaped, the other jumped out of the window and was running away...but Martin shot him in the back, killing him.
No justification for self defense whatsoever.
I know many think he was right, but there was no justification for what he did...it was not self defence. The old "English man's home is his castle" is not ans never has been a defence.
What someone thinks they can do and what the law says is legal are two different things. Each case like this is taken on its own merit.
The guy was wrong, and he was rightly convicted.
Maybe , maybe not. But either way it does not mean the director was right to allow him to go so over the top.
Guitarking, you need to go lookup the definition of woke. I never said I was offended or outraged by Benny Hill, only that to me his style of humour is outdated and unfunny.
Ridiculous...not all films are superior to TV shows simply because they are films. There are millions of bad films, and plenty of good TV series.
View all replies >