DuelGundam2099

It was planned since 2006 and they had a trailer a fourth one so unless the studio suddenly owes a ton of debt they will release a fourth movie.

The screenplay was awful. The acting was horrendous. The supped-up shuttles were ridiculous. The physics and spaceflight mechanics were laughable. A high caliber machine gun on a rover? Really? The sophomoric stereotyped portrayal of the Russian Cosmonaut on MIR. The very appearance of the asteroid... something that large would've been potato shaped due to gravity -- look at images of Apophis for example -- and not like a crystalline fractal. The screeching sound FX every time they cut to a scene of the asteroid moving through space. Etc.

I found none of those to be problems, those seem like nitpicks rather than real flaws.

Hyperbole is beyond your ability to comprehend, isn't it?

More like people here keep complaining it is dumb and never say why or how.

Deep Impact was friggin fantastic.

I do not see how.

This topic gives me very sad feelings, not so much the show as much as it is my own depression. *sigh* I still miss MT.

Also I do not know why you guys are limiting the discussion to mobile suits, what if Rin is more into battle ships? Gundam has a lot of them, high grades do exist, and that Gaw in episode 11 indicated they can be used in gunpla battles.

I have not seen that movie. Still looks better than Razorteeth, now THAT is a legitimately awful movie.

Not to be confused with Syfy's fantastic killer eel movie Razortooth.

^I never even saw the latter.

But a bad movie kills faster because 2x the factors!

When you have physical evidence of that I might buy your statement.

Stress kills. Bad movies are stressful to watch.

So does not exercising, so by that logic ALL movies kill.

It's also the kind of filtration that would have, as en example, resulted in me never watching Alien because "I don't like horror movies." Which is, in the general case, true. There are few horror movies that I enjoy, and it is not a genre I seek out without additional recommending factors.
If the only guide I had was "genre:horror" and "trailer:creepy music, screaming, and Sigourney Weaver busting someone's head with a fire extinguisher"... no.

You're missing one of the best movies out there, but if that is what floats your boat.

The crooks from Crocodile 2: Death Swamp. Greedy, hateful, lustful, hubris, jealous, war-loving, cruel, oppressive, ruthless, and apathetic. The four of them personified the evils and dark side of humanity, consistent and always in control. Even against nature, the crooks indiscriminately slay all those that do not follow their warped views and interests. Their evil is quite unparalleled. Aside from the teenagers from Flu Birds I cannot think of any villain(s) that hold a candle to their villainy.

And you wonder why many forum members have come to use you as punch line to their media jokes...

Oh come now, I have been aware what everyone thinks of me since RL assumed I had "psychological issues" by not wanting sex junk in my entertainment. I know what people think of me and I could not care less because I know appeasing to everyone is a fool's errand.

The more information one has beforehand (in a movie's case: screenplay writer(s), actors, director, producers, budget, genre, etc. are all relevant) the better in order to buy the best product possible, and avoid the garbage.

And unfortunately group thinkers think the garbage lies with the people that made them, not the actual product itself, knowing the staff never helps a decision such as that.

Any criteria one decides to use to weed out bad movies, or anything undeserving of an investment of your time/money, is a good thing that serves a constructive purpose.

"Anything"? By that logic bleach should be able to cure herpes, black widow venom helps bake Christmas cookies, bricks make good boats, and mirrors can be used to defend you from napalm. You cannot just use "anything" as a guideline.

It's the difference between being a discerning consumer of media, and being a sponge.

I prefer tiger shark, it is manlier and your point still gets across with animal analogies.

You can't prove they didn't cost me life expectancy, so I continue to maintain that they did.

Except I can: Movies do not take time off your life. Prove they can or your statement fails.

Sheeple is NEVER a relevant term.
It's derisive mockery that serves only to undermine any actual point you may have.

Except it is relevant, ever heard of group thinking? Very real concept.

That's why we look to see who directed a movie.

That is a terribad idea though, it creates unneeded tension between you and whatever it is you are going to view. Just do what I do and go in with bare minimum knowledge (like genre, promo material, and a sypnosis).

I was being sarcastic with that comment, Dynaman. Also the sequels are a vast improvement over the first movie.

Signs, Best in Show, Anchorman. I'm pretty sure all three should be considered toxic substances.

Signs was more mediocre than bad and Anchorman was very funny. They are also not toxic substances and do not take years off your life.

Sure it did. I was mocking the very existence of the term "sheeple."

Which is sad because it is a relevant term.

It should be a rough guide, but I often see people using it as their primary measure, often in bizarre forms.

Yes because judging something using its peers is a bad idea!

They most certainly do in Hollywood and you're a fool to suggest otherwise. Why do you think Keanu Reeves was the star of 47 Ronin?

Because he fit the part and people know him.

Or why they gave a lot of attention to Bryan Cranston being in Godzilla when it turned out he isn't the main character?

I don't know who that is nor could I care. Was he Serizawa?

Names have ALWAYS had power in filmmaking.

Mostly in the 80s and 90s when star power was at its peak, nowadays stars cannot carry a movie by themselves rather their source material and advertisements do.

I've seen some movies I'm pretty sure HAVE taken years off my life.

Examples?

While I suppose it's POSSIBLE Micheal Bay is only hired to direct movies with lots of explosions and potty humor written into the script by chance, it's not very likely at this point in his career. Especially given eyewitness testimony as to how much he likes explosions.

Kind of a tangent, but why do people associate Bay with explosions? There are rarely much more in his movies than there are in the average Hollywood movies since the new millennium.

Certainly, there's exceptions. David Fincher had VERY little control over Alien 3

Like with Ratner and X-Men 3, yet people still think most of their issues were his fault.

because Linkin Park is real music never touched by a marketing exec. Shows what I know.

And that statement had nothing to do with anything.

And if M. Night Shamalama(to pick a recurring name in the thread) has literally never directed a movie I enjoy, why should I believe THIS IS THE ONE, when experience dictates otherwise?

What movies were they? Why did you loathe them? Why even pick out a name?

the special effects were on par with PlayStation 1 cut screens.

I would love to see the details about this because they looked perfectly fine in the trailers.

All of which I say are my well informed opinions because I've seen enough "good" and "bad" movies to know the difference.

Did you see enough movies of its genre and budget range?

And you telling me I mean producer, when I mean director is tad amount to what you like to cry about, people twisting or putting words in your mouth.

More like you gave false information and I corrected you.

After seeing this in the theaters I can safely say this is one of the best movies of all time, bar none, tell Rotten Tomatoes to eat a bag of dicks because this movie is for masculine people only.

Right, so just because something doesn't cause immediate death or harm it's "good" or somehow not worthy of feedback, be it positive or negative? Be serious.

I said it will not kill you, do not twist my words please.

And why you continue to fall back on this "sheeple" argument when more than one person shares a similar opinion. Opinion, you know that thing people form based on their own personal likes or dislikes and experiences.

And sometimes said opinions are not properly informed.

In this case, the Director of a film, who has a team (writers, actors, stuntmen, etc.) and rules to work within (producers, budget, standards and practices) as the leader of said film will, can and should hold the blame when things go bad and accolades when they go well.

Technically the producers call the shots, otherwise the budget and advertising goes goodbye. In addition the director cannot be blamed for everything, too many factors come together so accountability should go into their respective areas.

but make no mistake the buck stops and starts with those that lead or in this case, Direct.

Producer, you mean producer.

Real World 101

Going to need a citation for this (among all your other points).

I don't want some guy or gal that has only ever flipped hamburgers to perform surgery on me any more than I want to see a movie made, produced by or staring folks with little to no creative talent, vision, training or skill.

And unlike surgery watching a movie you find lackluster will not kill you.

So an anonymous wizard just waves a magic wand and a finished master print just materializes in the studios library, and that's how movies are made

More like there are many people throwing around ideas with compromises between directors, cinematographers, writers, producers, actors, musicians, artists, stuntmen, and budget; people are under the delusion that they can just point to one or two names to blame a few problems with a movie (or any similar medium) especially when they ignore the other aspects entirely. You know what those people are called? Sheeple. I don't know about you, but I prefer looking at things at a whole and be a lone wolf, you know, not being herded by some random guy that will likely grill you to fit devourous consumption.

It's by Paul W. S. Anderson. What do you expect?

Names in the credits have nothing to do with anything.

Welcome back to MW, Sir Skull Leader. Don't mind me I am the guy who thinks Zero was the best entry of the franchise.

After suffering through the first half of Fate/stay night I can safely say this is one of the most boring anime I have ever watched, what the hell is the appeal of this schlock?

It does prove they could never happen in America, a quarter of the population is very anti-secular and most people will not vote for atheist politicians.