MovieChat Forums > TheHungryHippo > Replies
TheHungryHippo's Replies
Point still remains, it was a minor gaff that you are exploiting because you don't have any substance left in your argument.
And I am telling you that if you think that I need to see the extended cut that is proof that the theatrical cut can't stand on its own.
You have yet to back up your claim, therefore all you are doing is throwing spit wads against a brick wall. You claimed it had cultural impact and now the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.
Does your definition say it has to be rated individually? Seems like you are just making this up as you go.
Hmmmm, we have the heroes held up in a fortress while an army of Ork or Ork like creatures tries to invade the fortress by using a battering ram and at the end the heroes are reinforced resulting in them winning the battle. Yeah you're right they are completely different. Also the point still stands, you are grasping at straws and this entire discussion is irrelevant to the initial topic.
No you said in order for all of my complaints to be solved I needed to watch the extended cut: "So you first claim that it isn't accurate at all to the book then refuse to watch the extended cut which adds tons to the movie". Watching the extended cut shouldn't matter, there shouldn't be all of these plot holes in the theatrical cut.
It's your assertion you explain it, I'm not explaining your own position to you.
Does your definition say it has to be released to the public? I didn't see that.
Mistaking a 3 second shot for two very similar battle sequences hardly qualifies "not knowing what you're talking about", but thank you for playing.
No you said that I had to watch the extended cuts for it to make sense, therefore the theatrical cuts don't stand on their own and have plot holes.
This is your argument, the fact that you need me to clarify your argument shows you have a bad one.
So therefore me taking my movie editor and breaking up Pulp Fiction into it's 3 separate segments satisfies your definition, LOL you just shot yourself in the foot there. After all "Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace's Wife", "The Gold Watch" and "The Bonnie Situation" are 3 related things.
No I know exactly what I'm talking about, this is an irrelevant minor detail that you won't let up on because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
So in conclusion...The theatrical cuts can't stand on their own. Thank you for conceding
You are the one who asserted cultural impact, you should be the one to define it. I'm not defining your own assertion.
Tolkein has authority over his own work.
Are you talking about the shield surfing??? That was literally 5 seconds out of a 9 hour film, that hardly constitutes mixing up the 2nd and 3rd segment. Nice try kid.
I shouldn't have to watch the extended version, that is unless you are willing to admit the theatrical cuts can't stand on their own.
You are the one asserting cultural impact, it's not my job to provide a definition to your claim.
The google definition is irrelevant to the thoughts and intentions of the author of the novel.
1. I shouldn't have to watch the extended cut, the theatrical cut shouldn't be riddled with plot holes.
2. You made the claim that it's had cultural impact, you need to demonstrate it. I'm not taking your word for it.
3. It's just one story broken up into three pieces, anyone can do that. Nice try kid
4. Irrelevant
5. Who is talking about TDKR??? Stay on topic son.
No I said the movie should stand on its own, but the way it was written and directed you have to read the book to make sense out of it. You can't judge it as a film on its own.
I guess this "cultural impact" isn't as obvious to everyone as it is to you, I have a feeling you're making this up.
It's not a trilogy, a trilogy has a beginning, a middle and an end, this is just one story.
I never mentioned IMDB, RT or MC, stay on topic.
So then why did Legolas say "the stars are veiled" when they are clearly visible in the background? Why is Denethor so f-cking crazy??? Yeah if you read the book it makes perfect sense but if you only watch the movie it makes no sense at all and if the movie needs to rely on the book to make sense then it doesn't stand on its own.
Even the stuff Peter Jackson made up doesn't make sense all of the time, why did Sam turn around and go back to help Frodo when he found the bread??? I mean what was his realization??? "Why it turns out I didn't eat the bread afterall"??? And that is from a segment that I actually kind of liked. Such a stupid movie.
Interstellar is one of the greatest films ever made, Dunkirk was a complete letdown. Don't get me wrong, it's very well made visually but there is absolutely nothing under the surface.
Or kill him THEN rape him.
As a comedy it was stupid, as an action/adventure it was OK.
I'm guessing he just found their song stupid which is why he called them that but yeah the line wasn't funny.
He had some kind of spray from Kenbean's laboratory that made him bulletproof.
Part of their punishment was probably that they had to repair the damage they caused to their house. Although it seems like it would be a bad idea that they would have two attempted murderers do community service at the home of the people they tried to murder with only one guard.
The Nolan Batman films also weren't based on any particular work, it was one man's vision of a comic book character. The story was his own. You can't say that for LOTR it was a direct adaptation of a specific work that it didn't respect.
Sup moviefanatic. Knew you'd hunt me down eventually.
I wouldn't because I don't respect the God of the bible. Anyone who would torture someone for eternity simply for not believing in them enough when there was no evidence is an evil God.
Keep in mind that if the LOTR movie was a completely original work I'd probably think it was decent, my issues is it doesn't seem to respect what is one of the greatest novels I have ever read.
Yeah it was OK