TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 414

Thread: Are You Effing Kidding Me?

  1. #101
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2002
    Location: Pacific Northwest
    There were some good Star Wars games for the PC during the 90s too. LucasArts had some good things going for them back then.

  2. #102
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2004
    Location: left the building
    Now let's just hope Jar-Jar Binks make a comeback as a lead character in the new films to complete the pwnage.

    P.S. I don't care whether he's out of the timeline. It can be one his ancestors/descendants (that acts exactly like him) or a clone or he travelled through time or something.
    Last edited by Lazarus411; 1st Nov 2012 at 20:50.

  3. #103
    Moderator
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Everywhere
    @dethy - Dude, it was a religion for me back in 1980. When Han went into carbon freeze, I came home from the theater, grabbed my Han Solo action figure and stuck that motherfucker in the freezer. He did not come out until 1983 and was barred from use in any Star Wars play by my brothers or friends. I own nearly 200 books, and my toy collection will likely pay for at least 2 years of my oldest son's college when I sell it. Yes, I'm ridiculously fucked up over Star Wars.

    edit: p.s. I have also had sex. Multiple times, in case anyone is wondering. Not with my mom. I promise.

  4. #104
    Southquarter.com/fms
    Registered: Apr 2000
    Location: The Akkala Highlands
    I am almost positive I saw Fett in this video somewhere...



    p.s. - Triumph rocks.

  5. #105
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    That video... ha ha ha. I remember him doing a load of stuff.

    Of course, it would be nowhere near as good if he didn't have such gold plated nerds to deal with.

  6. #106
    Cuddly little misanthropic hate machine
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: someplace better than this
    Quote Originally Posted by fett View Post
    @dethy - Dude, it was a religion for me back in 1980.
    yeah well i'm an atheist, motherfucker

  7. #107
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by dethtoll View Post
    Christ I find myself missing the 1990s all of a sudden. Back when Star Wars was just the original trilogy and a few disparate games for the SNES. Back before it became a fucking religion.
    It was still a religion back then, too. You just didn't have the internet around to expose all the weirdness that surrounded it back then.

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    And besides, it isn't like Pixar didn't release mediocrity back when they were independent from Disney (Cars, anyone?)
    Cars was mediocre? That's probably one of their 3 best films.

  9. #109
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2006
    Location: On the tip of your tongue.
    Cars is enjoyable enough, but it's not good by Pixar standards. Leaving aside the formulaic plot and mostly unlikeable characters, for me, the main problem is that the setting just doesn't make any sense. A car is a machine made by humans for humans, and everything about it's design suggests this. If you take humans out of the equation, it becomes this borderline-creepy world that doesn't seem to have any reason for existing. In the world of Cars, how did cars come about? Did they evolve, like Transformers or something? That doesn't make much sense, because they wouldn't have evolved into cars. They are impractically designed to be sentient creatures; they would have arms and legs. Did the cars get made by humans who then all died out? If so, how did the cars become sentient? How does their economy work? How do they reproduce? Do they get constructed in factories like real cars? If so, with no external function (i.e. no purpose for humans to use them for), why do they resemble cars, and not some efficient Terminator-like designs? How does the society decide when to make new cars? How does death work in a completely car-centic society? Do dead cars get brutally cannibalised for their spare parts? There are no sensible answers to these and hundreds of other underlying sociological and physiological questions about the world of Cars. Is that over-thinking it? Of course. But on a sub-conscious level, it undermines the entire setting for the story. How can I care about Lightning McQueen when I'm not even sure how and why he exists? That's why I think it works for kids, who have no concept of most of these questions, and can just accept it, but it doesn't transcend to being a good story that adults can enjoy in the same way as most of Pixar's fare.

    Compare it to Wall-E. Wall-E makes total sense. He is a well-constructed character, and part of that is that you can immediately understand how and why he exists in his world. He was constructed by human beings to clean up rubbish on an ecologically-destroyed Earth of the future, but he's been alone so long that he's developed some personality quirks. His design, his actions, and the design of the world around him, completely fits that. Within a few minutes of watching Wall-E, you've stopped asking those sub-conscious questions because they've been answered through clear design on-screen, and you can simply focus on Wall-E as a character.

    Well this was an odd place for a rant about Cars...

  10. #110
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    Cars was mediocre? That's probably one of their 3 best films.
    Interesting to find more than one person here defending Cars, when it's usually agreed to be one of their weakest by far. I haven't seen it myself (wasn't all that interested), but I think I've read more defenses of Cars in the last week than before, in the years since it came out.

  11. #111
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2004
    Location: left the building
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    It was still a religion back then, too. You just didn't have the internet around to expose all the weirdness that surrounded it back then.
    The Jedi religion is actually one of the biggest and fastest growing religions in the UK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

  12. #112
    Nicked you could make that exact same post substituting Toy Story for Cars.

  13. #113
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2006
    Location: On the tip of your tongue.
    I dunno - Toy Story just has the one suspension of disbelief hurdle to get over. There are certainly some unanswerable questions about Toy Story that don't bear thinking about too hard, but the biggest hurdle, "Toys are magically sentient" makes sense within it's own universe. Sure there's no explanation as to why, but if you do accept that fact, there aren't many other inconsistencies to get in the way. I'd say Monsters Inc. needs more hand-waving than Toy Story, but still nowhere near as much as Cars.

  14. #114
    Moderator
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Everywhere
    I guess I just automatically substituted humans for cars in my mind. It's their world and everything fits them, so I just replaced them. I wasn't thinking to hard about it. Ratatouille is the one I have trouble swallowing. It's rooted in our world, and I don't even have a problem with sentient rats, but the whole human puppet/hair pulling thing just had no context or relationship to anything in either world. Really bizarre to me - just like the Brave girl's mom turning into a bear.

  15. #115
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2001
    Location: Lost in transit.
    The nonsensical setting of Cars wouldn't really matter if the story was engaging, instead of a tired, charmless retread of Doc Hollywood.

  16. #116
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2000
    Location: tall bikes and tattoos
    Don't forget the flabby pacing, spotty humor, and grating protagonist.

    At the same time, it's clever enough to entertain in a lazy, that'll-do sort of way. It's not a bad movie--they saved the utter shit for the sequel--but it's well below Pixar par.

  17. #117
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2000
    Location: sup
    Hay guyz how'd I miss this thread... (oh yeah because I hardly come here anymore - sorry ) ... now to the quotes!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    You're really going to regret those harsh words after Disney releases a cleaned up original trilogy on Blu Ray with all of Lucas's added bullshit removed (because they will).
    Taking Star Wars away from Lucas but (hopefully) giving him some creative input is the best thing possible for the franchise. I'll happily take sequels that don't fucking suck, thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    First task: making it so Han shot first again.


    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Forget about the Star Wars franchise for a moment, the deal is much bigger than that. The jewels in the Lucasfilm crown are Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound. ILM and Skywalker Sound have been instrumental in producing many, many good films, developing key technologies, and consistently pushing the state of the art. And until now, their services have been available to any studio.
    Has it been confirmed ILM and SS will be Disney only service providers now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    I also want to get drunk in a Mos Eisley-themed Cantina in Disneyland so bad it hurts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    a Dia de los Muertos film from the guy who directed Toy Story 3 and Ratatouille? Yeah, I'll take that


    I predict some awesome Grim Fandango homage now given the rights they've acquired!

    Quote Originally Posted by fett View Post
    How exactly are those sequels going to work though? Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher at 70 trying to reprise roles (which neither of them will do). A whole new story set in that universe? It would have to be awfully compelling to square with a universe that spawned some of the most beloved sci-fi/fantasy characters of all time. It'll be their kids, but they themselves don't show up in the films? Someone else plays the characters? None of these scenarios seem tenable in the least.
    I think you're underestimating:
    a) the cultural currency SW still holds (even if it is massively devalued by both the prequels and the mockery those encouraged)
    b) the canniness of a studio that has pulled themselves back from the direct-to-DVD category-sequel brink that Disney were in around the early 2000s to now being a powerhouse producer that released the biggest movie of this year (The Avengers)
    c) the potential talent that will be attracted to a new SW flick, I'm talking generations of writers, directors, producers who grew up on the originals and want to be part of making this franchise special to a whole new generation of people
    d) MONEY MONEY MONEY doesn't always create bad decisions (case in point - The Dark Knight led to Inception)

    Quote Originally Posted by fett View Post
    The charm of Star Wars is the bad acting, bad haircuts, cheesy dialogue, campy cantina/Jabba scenes, etc. A modern version (as we saw with the prequels) will attempt to "fix" all those things.


    Stop, fett, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Bookmark this thread, so when the next movie comes out we can go back and see who eats their words.
    I'm up for that.

    EDIT: Has everyone apparently missed that they've said it won't be linked to the PT/OT at all? Link.
    Last edited by Scots Taffer; 4th Nov 2012 at 04:29.

  18. #118
    Moderator
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Everywhere
    It's the first I've heard of it (thanks for the link) but has anyone also noticed that it's chock full of bullshit double-speak? It goes on and on about how the stories "aren't linked" to the previous films, have "new characters" blah blah blah, then they throw this gem in there:

    However, he also claims that they concern a Luke Skywalker "in his 30s and 40s," meaning the series would have to recast the role if they went in this direction, and everyone would then probably start freaking out about that.
    In other words, new characters, new story, re-cast Luke Skywalker who apparently has NO interaction with characters from the previous films. Which brings us full circle to my original (and pretty much ONLY objection) - how the fuck is this going to work?

    I'm sorry but that whole article smacks of "Hey, don't worry old fans, we're not going to mess with beloved characters, this is a new story!" and "We're going to keep Luke Skywalker because that's what George Lucas intended." They're talking shit out of both sides of their mouths.

    Here's what I don't get about you guys (in general, this may not be the case individually) - you are the first to poo-poo a new Thief game, un-needed sequels, three Hobbit films, etc. But you're all for this convoluted idea - a half-assed re-boot of a story that has long outlived its originality or the character's purpose.

    I hope I have to eat my words. But until I hear - "We're doing a completely new story in another part of that world that doesn't attempt to shoehorn in some sad version of Luke at 40 with George Lucas standing over our shoulder," I'm not likely to get very excited about this. And the fact is, they haven't said that yet - in fact, it seems they plan on doing exactly the opposite. I'm not expecting everyone to throw shit at Disney, but I'm flagergasted (Yes, I said FLABERGASTED, GOOD SIRS), that very few in the press or in this conversation are willing to acknowledge what a horrible idea this is if Disney tries to straddle the new story/George's story fence.


    edit: Am I the only one who gets a kick out of the myriad flaws in the SW trilogy? It's what made the prequels bearable for me. People complain about Darth Vader's "Nooooo!" and such, but I love stuff like that. It reminds me that these are Saturday morning cartoons, not Shakespeare. I don't want that stuff fixed or "modernized" - and a new set of movies (like the prequels) are sure to be so polished that the earthiness and grunge is all gone. These aren't the only films appreciated for those qualities either.
    Last edited by fett; 4th Nov 2012 at 11:11.

  19. #119
    Until I hear "we're going to excise everything from Star Wars that isn't in the original theatrical versions of the original trilogy, the dark forces trilogy (DF/JK/JK2), and the 2 KotOR games" I won't get excited.

  20. #120
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by fett View Post
    But until I hear - "We're doing a completely new story in another part of that world that doesn't attempt to shoehorn in some sad version of Luke at 40 with George Lucas standing over our shoulder," I'm not likely to get very excited about this.
    I don't find the galaxy it's set in very compelling really. I like the OT because I like the plot, and because it was actually (despite being a set of "blockbusters") pretty minimal. The new trilogy was just too frikking flashy. In the OT we see Tatooine, Dagobah, Bespin and Endor. There is sod all on these planets. In the new trilogy all the planets are teeming with CGI stuff. Yeah, it may be because of cost and technology but the feel of the old vs new is so different.

    It's almost like a horror film - what you don't see has more weight than what you do see. I'll wager that this also helps Firefly because it too didn't show loads of massively populated and built up locations.

    The OT had ships that look battered. As has been said about the new ones - the tech looks better and it's set in the past.

    I just don't think that the new films will offer anything special because imho the universe is dull (now we've seen lots of it) and unless they are a big throwback to the OT it'll just be flashy yawns.

  21. #121
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    You forgot Hoth, perhaps the most iconic Star Wars location.

    What I loved about the original Star Wars' battle scenes (and, to a lesser extent, about the entire trilogy) was how much they felt like The Battle of Britain and other WW2 aerial combat films. The prequel dogfights lost this quality, being way too busy to be effective. I don't think it's just the difference in my age that makes me want to play the battle of Yavin but have little interest in playing any of the dogfights of the prequels.

  22. #122
    ZylonBane
    Registered: Sep 2000
    Location: ZylonBane
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    Nicked you could make that exact same post substituting Toy Story for Cars.
    No you couldn't, and anyone saying such a thing is either trolling or was repeatedly dropped on their head as a child.

  23. #123
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2006
    Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by fett View Post
    It's the first I've heard of it (thanks for the link) but has anyone also noticed that it's chock full of bullshit double-speak? It goes on and on about how the stories "aren't linked" to the previous films, have "new characters" blah blah blah, then they throw this gem in there:



    In other words, new characters, new story, re-cast Luke Skywalker who apparently has NO interaction with characters from the previous films. Which brings us full circle to my original (and pretty much ONLY objection) - how the fuck is this going to work?

    I'm sorry but that whole article smacks of "Hey, don't worry old fans, we're not going to mess with beloved characters, this is a new story!" and "We're going to keep Luke Skywalker because that's what George Lucas intended." They're talking shit out of both sides of their mouths.

    Here's what I don't get about you guys (in general, this may not be the case individually) - you are the first to poo-poo a new Thief game, un-needed sequels, three Hobbit films, etc. But you're all for this convoluted idea - a half-assed re-boot of a story that has long outlived its originality or the character's purpose.

    I hope I have to eat my words. But until I hear - "We're doing a completely new story in another part of that world that doesn't attempt to shoehorn in some sad version of Luke at 40 with George Lucas standing over our shoulder," I'm not likely to get very excited about this. And the fact is, they haven't said that yet - in fact, it seems they plan on doing exactly the opposite. I'm not expecting everyone to throw shit at Disney, but I'm flagergasted (Yes, I said FLABERGASTED, GOOD SIRS), that very few in the press or in this conversation are willing to acknowledge what a horrible idea this is if Disney tries to straddle the new story/George's story fence.
    As you say, right now, all the PR peeps are doing is just running around talking shit trying to pre-empt and manage nerd rage. This is exactly why I personally am not at all worried about the particulars of what they are saying. If the property lands with the right people, who have some clout (e.g. a Pixar director or a Joss Whedon etc), then I have some faith that they will be able to push back on any really dumb ideas. If not, well then we're just going to get another shitty Star Wars film like the prequels and the franchise will be no more dead and diluted as it is already.

    edit: Am I the only one who gets a kick out of the myriad flaws in the SW trilogy? It's what made the prequels bearable for me. People complain about Darth Vader's "Nooooo!" and such, but I love stuff like that. It reminds me that these are Saturday morning cartoons, not Shakespeare. I don't want that stuff fixed or "modernized" - and a new set of movies (like the prequels) are sure to be so polished that the earthiness and grunge is all gone. These aren't the only films appreciated for those qualities either.
    My brothers and I (we'd watch the trilogy every school holidays) used to love all the goofy bits too but with the OT, the really bad and cheesey stuff is mostly confined to the background ("Good, our first catch of the day!"); with the prequels it infects everything.
    Last edited by Angel Dust; 4th Nov 2012 at 22:51.

  24. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Morte View Post
    The nonsensical setting of Cars wouldn't really matter if the story was engaging, instead of a tired, charmless retread of Doc Hollywood.
    This.

  25. #125
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2000
    Location: tall bikes and tattoos
    Quote Originally Posted by Scots Taffer View Post
    Hay guyz how'd I miss this thread... (oh yeah because I hardly come here anymore - sorry )
    This thread reeled me back in, too

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •