Quake3World

YourGrandpa wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_arc

Thank you sir

This helps explain how I missed it

the term "story arc" was coined in 1988 in relation to the television series Wiseguy,[1] and was quickly adapted for other uses.

Whiskey, don't encourage him...

Whiskey 7 wrote:

YourGrandpa wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_arc

Thank you sir

Think of it this way...something you've probably seen in untold numbers of movies:

- Two characters meet
- They do not get along and spend most of the movie insulting each other and pointing out their faults
- One of the characters saves the other or does something that impresses the other character
- The two characters that originally hated each other are now friends.

Another obvious arc is the racist who ends up liking minorities...or at least accepting them....usually with a clichéd "nod of approval".

It can be anything, but it essentially means the progression of a character throughout a story.

Ferrao10 wrote: I think what the kid learned from his father's love was natural trust.
Like, don't trust anybody but, if that chance comes, bet on that one card and trust. We have to act the same way even in this "functional" world.
Also the kid had to learn to make his own decisions. The father made them before he died. Very generic, but a natural arc in a kid's life.
The kid also had to learn not to trust everyone, on the other side.
Don't know what version you saw, there was a cut version floating around. The original BD runs about 1:52 including credits.
The cut version does not contain the actions that take place in the farm house's basement. It is a pretty important element though, I think. At least concerning the kid.
The father's arc was a downward spiral, I absolutely agree. He couldn't hang on to life after the catastrophy and his own loss of his wife. He tried for the sake of the kid but he lost. But for his arc, could you imagine yourself in that role? I couldn't. I would probably have acted just like he did. This is no Superman movie. His former life was annihilated and there is no perspective, no future, only the kid and, thus, survival in that world.

I saw the full version.

And if you ask me what I'd have done in that role, I'd have mutated from whatever caused the catastrophe by growing wings, learning to fly and killing my enemies from above by shitting heavily onto their heads. I'd be cooler than Superman.

Whiskey 7 wrote:

YourGrandpa wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_arc

Thank you sir

This helps explain how I missed it

the term "story arc" was coined in 1988 in relation to the television series Wiseguy,[1] and was quickly adapted for other uses.

NP.

End of Watch - 8/10

It was pretty awesome. Then again, I love Jake Gyllenhaal ever since I saw Donnie Darko.

Red 2

Simply loved it



Enjoyed so much because I saw it shortly after the original so it has to be an 8/10

IMDB

Star Trek: Into Darkness - 5/10

JJ Abrams is a cock

that is all

Bling Ring - 5/10 - some of the acting was good, some was bad. horrifying that it's a real story, moreso that the movie probably makes the kids seem smarter than they likely are in real life. i think it should be watched back to back with "The Edukators" or not at all.

seremtan wrote:Star Trek: Into Darkness - 5/10

JJ Abrams is a cock

that is all

Some explanation would be nice.

Haven't seen it yet, but I see it gets a 87% score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Are all those critics also cocks?
Is that really all?

What kind of explanation do you need after the first movie? It's JJ JewName making another shit movie...as usual. It's like asking if the next Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll movie will be any good...you already know the answer.

What more do you need to understand his post?

The World's End = 7/10 - Pretty funny and worth a watch. The ending scene made no sense whatsoever, but in this movie it simply doesn't matter.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:What kind of explanation do you need after the first movie? It's JJ JewName making another shit movie...as usual. It's like asking if the next Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll movie will be any good...you already know the answer.

What more do you need to understand his post?

It's because I don't blindly dismiss something based on previous work that may have sucked.
Do you forever want to be judged by some dud you contributed to in the past?

Nothing blind about assuming that a brainless, reference-making, VFX-jizzfest covered-in-lens-flare POS would lead to more brainless, reference-making, VFX-jizzfest covered-in-lens-flare bullshit in the sequel....especially when the same horrible director and writer are still completely in control of this franchise. FFS, Derpmon Lindelderp is a fucking Producer in this series, never mind the main writer/references-to-better-films-douchebag. This franchise is doomed to perennially suck and I'll gladly say,"I told you so" after the next one as well.

Seriously...should we have some fun and predict the next Star Trek film? It won't be that hard, I'm quite sure of that. Hell, I think Milton Bradley is even making a board game to do precisely that, no doubt based on the drinking game.

Calm the fuck down.
The way you go on about this, you'd think JJ Abrams ruined shit...
Not so.

Or, maybe so...

But. The Star Trek franchise was ruined many times.
The most recent ruining was alright with me

Plan B wrote:

seremtan wrote:Star Trek: Into Darkness - 5/10

JJ Abrams is a cock

that is all

Some explanation would be nice.

Haven't seen it yet, but I see it gets a 87% score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Are all those critics also cocks?
Is that really all?

respectively: who cares, probably, and yes

it was shiny, and to be fair it never dragged, but the script was by-the-numbers, and J J A-hole's franchise callbacks are starting to get tiresome. some new ideas would be nice

(oh, and the insertion of Spock Prime into proceedings just so Leonard Nimoy can keep up his 100% Star Trek movie appearance record was contrived and pointless)

seremtan wrote:respectively: who cares, probably, and yes

it was shiny, and to be fair it never dragged, but the script was by-the-numbers, and J J A-hole's franchise callbacks are starting to get tiresome. some new ideas would be nice

See, that's nice.
You get a sense of what you're all about. There's intimacy...

FOR ME TO POOP ON

Plan B wrote:The way you go on about this, you'd think JJ Abrams ruined shit...
Not so.

Or, maybe so...

But. The Star Trek franchise was ruined many times.
The most recent ruining was alright with me

lol I see you've accepted your bleak entertainment future.
Carry on.

The next Star Trek film will take the Enterprise past the "Great Barrier" and into the centre of the galaxy. There the new BFF team of Kirk and Spock will search for humpback whales while battling Klingons who want to steal the Genesis device from Dr.Marcus. Oh...not THAT Dr.Marcus, but the other one...the one with the tits. Then, after leaving the centre of the galaxy, the Enterprise saves the Ba'ku from the Son'a and uses Khan's regenerative blood to tweak the regenerative radiation from the planet to save Kirk (who dies in every Star Trek movie from now on). Upon returning to Earth, Kirk and Spock save San Francisco and Starfleet Academy from being destroyed by whatever is trying to destroy it this week...probably a Cloverfield monster in reference to JJ Jewname's previous movie that sucked. Doesn't really matter what it is, you'll be able to see it in the background among the frantically running future people. Then at the end, Kirk, having been stripped of his Captaincy earlier in the film (again) once more takes command of the Enterprise in a big ceremony before she flies off into the next reference-filled movie that idiots will gladly pay to watch. The End.

Then...in a post-credits scene where Sulu is sucking off an engineer in a Jeffries tube, an alien suddenly bursts out his chest while a polar bear rampages through Ten-Forward. (If you don't know why I'm making a joke about that then you truly don't understand just how horrible a writer Damon Lindelderp is)

Oh, spoiler alert...

All this and I am about to buy the blu-ray just released here last week

yeah, but we already know you had bad taste. (see above post re: Red 2)

Rush

It's a good film but that's exactly what it is, a film

It missed out some pretty big moments that I think would have enhanced the movie and Chris Hemsworth did an alright job but portrayed James Hunt as a rather 1 dimensional character only interested in booze, shagging and racing with some very slight anxiety issues when under pressure from things like journalists. It's a slight issue for me but people who aren't fans of F1 or Hunt in particular probaly wouldn't care if he was a Monk in his spare time and would like to know more about the rivalry with Niki Lauda, which is what Ron Howard would like us to believe.

My biggest gripe is bullshit mixed with fact, either do one or the other but not both imo. Hunt punching a cassette tape into a reporters mouth raised my eyebrow as this never happened and was thrown into the storyline from nowhere, there's no need, another time Hunt says something along the lines of "Isn't that what were here for, To stare death in the face and beat it?, That's the nobility of it.". That's a comment from someone who obviously hasn't even bothered researching the sport. The film also lost the bond between Lauda and Hunt, the movie will have you believe that hatred or envy fueled each others desire to win when nothing was further from the truth. Hunt and Niki had a tremendous amount of respect for each other, they would often socialise and go drinking at parties etc but instead the film would have you believe that upto the point of Lauda's accident that each would have preferred the other dead. So even basing the film on an actual portrayal of rivalry I still think it falls far short.

But the movie does have an ace, the guy who portrayed Niki Lauda was a beast, Daniel Bruhl managed to portray everything about Lauda that Hemsworth failed to achieve with Hunt which, to be fair, was a pretty tall order to begin with. I think the movie is worth it because of this and for me the movie was about him and his determination against his own demons.


[Big spoiler]
In the last race after confusion about the standings Hunt thought he had finished 5th when he needed 3rd for the world championship, arriving back into a celebrating pit crew Hunt apologises to the team for the loss when really Hunt was furious and proceeded to blame everyone but himself, pulling his helmet off looking for a ruck when someone had to wave 3 fingers in his face to indicate his final position to get him to calm down.[/Big spoiler]

If Hunt was portrayed properly then this wouldn't have to be altered and I think shows how big a difference the movie character was from the actual character.

If you do watch this then you really do need to check out the real story, try the BBC documentary called 'F1's Greatest Racing Rivals'. I promise it's even stranger than the movie portrays and is a better tribute to Hunt, it is a shame that there's no input from Lauda in this program though :/

[lvlshot]http://www.formula1.com/wi/gi/597x478/Y_ET/manual/gallery_image_main_326_10.jpg[/lvlshot]

Legend

RED 2 - 6/10

I was entertained but it's a bad movie. +1 for blatant product placement; I guess they cut a scene where they use the papa joe's delivery guy to enter the kreml.