Rate the last movie you saw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sketch

oh, hush. you probably even still like Voyager (which I'll admit, I watched when it was on air. but I was a teenager and didn't know any better =b what's your excuse?)

---

7 of 9 - Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix 01

.
.
.
.
.
.
...And I was a teenager. My current excuse is I'm just watching all of them--regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R/T93

Thadd you think Point Break is good, you lose, good day sir.

From the phone.

---

WTF did I say that? I only watched that movie because I liked Lori Petty back in the day. :awesome:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPD

Completely disgree. F'd since 6. 6 was a VERY good movie--except for the end scene which was kinda stupid. And I didn't hate 2010 ST; 10/10 for style. Into Darkness: minus several million for good thinking.

P.S.

If you know quote I'm bastardizing for this statement--without looking--I owe you a beer. :)

---

I actaully liked 6 and I didn't like the end either. but Star Trek 4 is the standard to which all badness is measured.

I also liked both the new ST's. what do you mean by bad thinking?

sry I don't know the quote. in fact I'm not even sure what part of your post is supposed to be a quote. :p

p.s. beer for you if you get what I just quoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sketch

Comparing apples to oranges to pineapples, sweet T

and what about First Contact? that was the best of the TNG movies (though for what it was - a transitional film - Generations was okay (especially for an odd numbered film)). FC was probably the best of the original 10 next to Wrath of Khan.

---

I really liked WoK. but I also liked Nemesis and First Contact as well. :dontknow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sketch

oh, hush. you probably even still like Voyager (which I'll admit, I watched when it was on air. but I was a teenager and didn't know any better =b what's your excuse?)

---

dude it's like oldschool cartoons. things that I thought were so awesome just seem cheesy now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R/T93

Thadd you think Point Break is good, you lose, good day sir.

From the phone.

---

game. set. match. :lol:

p.s. you ever lay on your back screaming while shooting your gun in the air? :lol:

nemesis was...okay, i s'pose. didn't really do anything for me, but it wasn't necessarily bad. certainly better than the voyage home. undiscovered country was alright, too. but it was no Wrath of Khan or First Contact

Wrath of Kahn
Undiscovered country
First Contact


I consider Search for Spock and Voyage Home as part of the Wrath of Kahn story so they do not get their own slot. I loved Voyage Home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPD

Completely disgree. F'd since 6. 6 was a VERY good movie--except for the end scene which was kinda stupid. And I didn't hate 2010 ST; 10/10 for style. Into Darkness: minus several million for good thinking.

P.S.

If you know quote I'm bastardizing for this statement--without looking--I owe you a beer. :)

---

Quote is hitchhikers guide iirc

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I owe serge a beer. :beer:

Voyage home was a great movie. How dare you call it "The worst"? That was clearly ST5, The Final Frontier--but even that was more palatable than watching the TNG movies and seeing Picard the cerebral diplomat turned into Picard the gunslinger. If they wanted to do ST movies with badd-assery and shooting shit, they should have used Sisko. He sucker-punched Q in the face. That shit cray!

The ONLY good part about Into Darkness was Carol Marcus--both because of the sex appeal and because of the ST2 tie-in. The rest of it was a biblical fail because they didn't stop there; they kept using every bit of ST2 that they could. And I still say Michael Fassbender (Magneto in the last 2 xmen movies) would have been a better Khan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPD

I owe serge a beer. :beer:

Voyage home was a great movie. How dare you call it "The worst"? That was clearly ST5, The Final Frontier--but even that was more palatable than watching the TNG movies and seeing Picard the cerebral diplomat turned into Picard the gunslinger. If they wanted to do ST movies with badd-assery and shooting shit, they should have used Sisko. He sucker-punched Q in the face. That shit cray!

---

Time Traveling to grab some humpback whales because there is just no other way. :rolleyes: complete and total garbage. you get to time travel and you chose to pick up some whales from the 1980's. sure 5 sucked but it was just dumb. 4 was dumb with hippie/eco/save the Earth BS tossed in.

...and still a fun and entertaining movie...because i enjoyed the cultural dyspepsia

Bobby you semi quoted Big Bang Theory. ;)

Watched "Her" the other night, 6-7 out of 10. Definitely kept my attention as it's something I could see happening in the not to distant future.

Read the synopsis. Man interacting with OS? Sounds like Moon. ;)

Upon further consideration, I now have these thoughts about xmen-7:

-How in the hell did Wolverine get his adamantium claws back? They were severed at the climax of xmen-6.

-Why make an end teaser/trailer for xmen-8 & make it so obscure that only die-hard fans get the references? It kinda throws that whole "established cannon is too narrow and doesn't have a broad enough audience" mindset right out the window; which is the entire justification for the series going off the reservation in the first place.

I'm not the only one scratching his head here.

'X-Men: Days of Future Past' ending: What it means. | PopWatch | EW.com
Why X-Men: Days of Future Past is getting too much credit - Flickering Myth

X-men visual movie timeline (Earth-10005, pre DOFP ending)
spoilers abound, including some pastable speculation answering your question:

 

Wolverine once again has Adamantium claws, more than likely due to Magneto's abilities.

sauce

 

at the end of the movie - we don't know whether or not if Wolvie has the adamantium skeleton or not - we are left to assume that he does, as Mystique was impersonating Stryker at the end of DOFP in 1973

Sounds to me like they just should have stuck to canon. Trying to re-invent material without ANYONE working on continuity is a recipe for disaster. Imagine if DS9 or TNG was made without anyone checking continuity....

In the comics Magneto has removed wolverines admantium in the past. This was done in the reverse of the way he punched him full of rebar in DOFP.

Given the tech shown in The Wolverine it would have been easy for them to recast his claws after they were done growing back. Because of that it did not bother me that he had the admantium in the future/current part of the DOPF time line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan92RTTT

In the comics Magneto has removed wolverines admantium in the past. This was done in the reverse of the way he punched him full of rebar in DOFP.

Given the tech shown in The Wolverine it would have been easy for them to recast his claws after they were done growing back. Because of that it did not bother me that he had the admantium in the future/current part of the DOPF time line.

---

...except that it wasn't established for those of us who are "illiterate" in xmen.

The Xmen illiterate probably don't care.

...except that if anyone watched xmen 6, it's a glaring oversight. something that could have been fixed with 1 line of dialogue even. :PicardFacepalm2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPD

...except that if anyone watched xmen 6, it's a glaring oversight. something that could have been fixed with 1 line of dialogue even. :PicardFacepalm2:

---

oversight? no. 10 years have passed between X6 and X7 - the point is that we're left to wonder about how it happened so that it can be filled in with a later installment. or perhaps it's in a deleted scene - a scene that's deleted as it doesn't help the story progress, necessarily. we're all left curious, the more curious we are, the more likely we'll be to pay to see the sequel. methinks you're reading in between the lines too much for a comic book movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sketch

oversight? no. 10 years have passed between X6 and X7 - the point is that we're left to wonder about how it happened so that it can be filled in with a later installment. or perhaps it's in a deleted scene - a scene that's deleted as it doesn't help the story progress, necessarily. we're all left curious, the more curious we are, the more likely we'll be to pay to see the sequel. methinks you're reading in between the lines too much for a comic book movie.

---

Don't get me wrong, I like it. I'd argue that it's the best of the 7 so far. But that's not how movies work. Movies with prequels & sequels don't leave plot holes and issues of this type un-addressed. If they went with a separate story altogether--threw the "established movie canon" out the window--then what they did wouldn't be an issue.

In my opinion, the par excellence of this type is Prometheus. To an avid fan, all the tie-ins were there...yet the movie didn't tell us how or even when Alien followed that movie chronologically; nor does the audience need that information. That's because it's not a key element.

On the other hand, Shadowcat gaining telepathic powers or Wolverine re-obtaining metal claws...or worse, Professor X re-appearing in the same body; these are things which avid fans of the MOVIES (again, not the comics...because we already established that comic-canon isn't "sufficient" to garner an audience--at least in the hollywood bigshits minds)--has trouble accepting.

My point is, either connect it securely...or disconnect it so that the ties are VERY loose and there is mystery. Half-way in between is just poor screenwriting.

Requiem for a Dream

9.5/10

I haven't seen this moving in years. But holy shit is it better than I remember. A total roller coaster of emotions from this movie. Pretty wild how real it all seems.

How do you guys watch your movies? I use alluc.to and putlocker.bz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPD

Don't get me wrong, I like it. I'd argue that it's the best of the 7 so far. But that's not how movies work. Movies with prequels & sequels don't leave plot holes and issues of this type un-addressed. If they went with a separate story altogether--threw the "established movie canon" out the window--then what they did wouldn't be an issue.

In my opinion, the par excellence of this type is Prometheus. To an avid fan, all the tie-ins were there...yet the movie didn't tell us how or even when Alien followed that movie chronologically; nor does the audience need that information. That's because it's not a key element.

On the other hand, Shadowcat gaining telepathic powers or Wolverine re-obtaining metal claws...or worse, Professor X re-appearing in the same body; these are things which avid fans of the MOVIES (again, not the comics...because we already established that comic-canon isn't "sufficient" to garner an audience--at least in the hollywood bigshits minds)--has trouble accepting.

My point is, either connect it securely...or disconnect it so that the ties are VERY loose and there is mystery. Half-way in between is just poor screenwriting.

---

Professor X reappearance was explained in the after-credits scene in X3, additional detail in my link above.
But yes, overall the X-men series has been very...loose with established canon. And with time frames, character connections, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOMIEZVR4

How do you guys watch your movies? I use alluc.to and putlocker.bz

---

YIFY.... :D

movie25 lately.

P.S.
No, Professor X's re-appearance wasn't explained by xmen3. Sure, he was reincarnated into the body of another man. Ok. So why does he STILL look like Patrick Stewart? And don't tell me it's "mental projection"--he's still rolling around in a wheelchair. If anything, he should have either been portrayed by a different actor...or he should have been walking around & only when he walks past a mirror do you see that it's not actually Charles's old body. Shitty screenwriting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPD

No, Professor X's re-appearance wasn't explained by xmen3. Sure, he was reincarnated into the body of another man. Ok. So why does he STILL look like Patrick Stewart? And don't tell me it's "mental projection"--he's still rolling around in a wheelchair. If anything, he should have either been portrayed by a different actor...or he should have been walking around & only when he walks past a mirror do you see that it's not actually Charles's old body. Shitty screenwriting.

---

**nerd glasses*

 

The events of "X-Men: The Last Stand" take place.

Jean Grey is resurrected as Phoenix. Cyclops is killed. Phoenix kills Xavier and joins Magneto. X-Men and Brotherhood of Mutants battle another until it culminates in Wolverine killing The Phoenix. Xavier transfers his consciousness into his twin brother's comatose body.

Worthington Labs introduces a vaccine that claims to eradicate the X-gene, leading to violent uprisings from mutant factions that resulted in the destruction of the Golden Gate Bridge. Recognizing the need to improve human-mutant relations, the President appoints Beast as ambassador to the UN.

Note: The explanation that is given for Charles's resurrection (and elaborated in the tie-in novel) is that Charles had a twin brother named P. Xavier. P. Xavier was born into a comatose state that he stayed in his whole life, theoretically because of Charles's psychic abilities in the womb being so powerful and uncontrolled. P. Xavier eventually ended up as a care subject of Moira's who Charles transfers his consciousness into when Jean kills him.

His paralysis in his new body could be due to atrophied spine muscles, or the explanation given in Days of Future Past, where his paralysis and telepathy seem to share a relationship.

(Explanation found in DVD Commentary for X-Men: The Last Stand during the credits.)

sauce, additional info
tl; dr: read the tie-in novels

**where the hell did i get these glasses anyways**

So we're just supposed to "magically" know that the donor body was his "twin brother"? What fucktard decided omitting that factoid was a good idea? Furthermore, how the fuck did his twin brother become paralyzed? I KNOW charles wasn't paralyzed at birth, so it sure as fuck wasn't a birth defect. And if it WAS atrophy, his ENTIRE BODY would have atrophied, arms and all. So if his psychic abilities are "tied to his paralysis", then we're supposed to believe that he's PSYCHOSOMATICALLY INDUCED HIS OWN PARALYSIS...just for the sake of his own abilities? Hell, if that's the case, why didn't Charles try to turn himself into a quadriplegic, just to see if he could turn into a level 6 mutant?

Utter rubbish screenwriting.

P.S.
So we're also supposed to believe that Xavier has kept his twin alive as a HUMAN VEGETABLE for half a century? I mean, Terri Schiavo had 15 years...and that was pushing it. So was Charles just a narcissistic asshat who thought he'd keep a body-double around "just in case"? Wow.

you're looking for realism in a comic book super hero movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sketch

you're looking for realism in a comic book super hero movie.

---

No. I'm looking for basic suspension of disbelief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ipd

no. I'm looking for basic suspension of disbelief in a comic book movie.

---

fyp : D

watched Inglorious Basterds over the weekend for the first time. good flick, great acting. really enjoyed the mix of spaghetti western feel with that of a WW2 movie. solid 8.5/10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sketch

fyp : D

---

I think you're misunderstanding. I have "suspension of disbelief" when i watch star trek episodes. Food replicators, warp drive, time travel, teleporters...these things don't actually exist. That doesn't spoil the show for me. Neither do super-powers spoil the xmen movies for me.

What WOULD spoil ST, say TNG, is if the characters blatantly reneged on their established backstories/mannerisms/behaviors--without due cause. This is one of the key reasons I don't like the TNG movies; Picard's character is completely unlike his portrayal on TV, and there's NO justification for it. Having James Bond go "off the reservation" because of what happened to Felix Liter--well that makes sense to me. I don't have a "WTF" moment with the movie...because it's a plausible consequence of the events that transpired.

I'm not balking at the idea super-healing abilities, transplantation of consciousness into another being, or even mental time-travel abilities. I am taking umbrage at the fact the the movie was scripted in such a way as to discard all previous movies as being virtually irrelevant (at best) or outright lies (at worst). If Marvel wanted to do Xmen by throwing the previously-established storylines in the garbage each time...then they shouldn't ever use the same characters. Movie 1 can be about Wolverine. Movie 2 can be about Gambit. Movie 3 can be about Psylocke, etc.

Mutants gaining powers out of "thin air" (ala shadowcat) is deus-ex machina. Professor X being re-incarnated as though he never died in the first place...deus-ex machina. And we're talking about a level of it that makes Voyager's "let's use borg nanites" look like a positively inspired plot-device.

P.S.
"Inglourious Basterds" is not to be confused with "The Inglorious Bastards". I've seen both. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sketch

watched Inglorious Basterds over the weekend for the first time. good flick, great acting. really enjoyed the mix of spaghetti western feel with that of a WW2 movie. solid 8.5/10

---

I liked that movie a lot

We have to realize 2 things.

1) You can't blame Marvel for any of the X movies. Its all Sony.

2) The Main function of DOFP is to remove Most of X3 from continuity. I will suffer with some rough edges to remove that movie from continuity.

here's the deal. the X-Men movies(as is with so many other franchise film series) is like a really hot chick. she's a 10 that you just want to bang as much as you can. however she has problems. she's kinda a bitch, doesn't like puppies, high maintance, puts the toliet paper on the roller backwards, smokes or whatever things that would normally be a deal breaker for a girl. now you have 2 choices. STFU, bang her and be happy or dwell on all this BS and sit at home alone on Friday. the choice is yours.

The Social Network.
6-10. damn I had no idea that the Napster guy was such a d*ck. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Echo419

here's the deal. the X-Men movies(as is with so many other franchise film series) is like a really hot chick. she's a 10 that you just want to bang as much as you can. however she has problems. she's kinda a bitch, doesn't like puppies, high maintance, puts the toliet paper on the roller backwards, smokes or whatever things that would normally be a deal breaker for a girl. now you have 2 choices. STFU, bang her and be happy or dwell on all this BS and sit at home alone on Friday. the choice is yours.

---

Well that's where you're wrong. Option 3 is to just bang the shit out of her while I still can & then complain to all my guy pals how I'm sick and tired of putting up with her shit. Then I just wait until she either grows the fuck up (highly unlikely), or the situation comes to a head and it gets called off. Till then, I'll wait it out.

I've been married 14 years. I know how this shit works. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IPD

Well that's where you're wrong. Option 3 is to just bang the shit out of her while I still can & then complain to all my guy pals how I'm sick and tired of putting up with her shit. Then I just wait until she either grows the fuck up (highly unlikely), or the situation comes to a head and it gets called off. Till then, I'll wait it out.

I've been married 14 years. I know how this shit works. :p

---

:lol: yeah I don't really consider marriage an option but the analogy is spot on. :lol:

how to train your dragon. 9/10. thoroughly enjoyed this movie...going to have to go see the sequel now.
also, the original score was phenomenal.