2012 - Best Year in Movies?

[Quirel]

Eh, forgot to post some.

Predators can only be considered a disgrace when you consider what the original was about.

A limp-wristed parody of action movies?

>

For fuck sake, he was a wimp in That 70's Show, what is he doing in this movie? And, why is the female character the most badass one? Of course, that isn't saying much since the other male characters were the types that I would take their lunch money in high school. The first seasoon of Lost was a better Predator many than this one.

Tychus. I am so very disappointed in you.
You complain about a heartless serial killer with an extensive knowledge of natural poisons being part of the ensemble, when the original movie had Hawkins.

Yes. Hawkins.
I've seen raw bacon with more spine than this guy. I've seen fossilized skeletons with more guts than him. There's probably more testosterone at the 14th annual Tokyo Yaoi Convention than his body can ever hope to produce. And yet there he was, 'chilling' with Dutch and Ventura.

[Hellgrinder]

With Post University online degrees, you can earn a degree or certificate on your own schedule, without putting your life on hold. Completing an online degree program allows busy professionals like you to further your education and career opportunities in a flexible, convenient and supportive way. You'll also be learning with other working adults and talented faculty in a highly interactive online format.

Oh goody. Another spambot.

[TheEconomist]

I get a feeling that, if I go back in your archived posts far enough, I'll find a post lamenting how manhood for the sake of manhood is declining in social acceptance.

Not quite. IIRC, I was commenting that, as a result of the new "cubicle" environment that we are in, i.e. classrooms, etc., as well as just about everything we need being met with ease, that men, as a whole, are losing what it means to be men and lamented the fact that anyone trying to break from this mold is seen as having some kind of mental illness. Aggression/Competition and self-confidence are almost clinical flaws, not just by authorities but by men themselves yet they've been the stape of male-kind up until a few decades ago.. The proof is pretty much self-evident all around us. The only people that I've found to disagree are those who themselves (seem to be) semi-immasculated. You know somethings wrong when prominent feminazis from the 70's are now writing books about the demise of the "real man".

(Just so you know I'm not bullshitting, http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...+demise+of+men)

Or perhaps an argument that even if a CMC suit augments its wearer's strength, there must be a minimum threshold of strength to use it, which would be above what the average woman can handle.

Here, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, but I may have said something similar as some kind of joke. I doubt it though, because I am usually able to remember almost all of my posts, and this doesn't even tap a bell.

I enjoyed Predators more than the first movie, even if I did have some problems with it.

That's sad bro. When it comes down to it, you prefer a tenuous albeit arguably marginal increase in depth of characters to absolute badassery. Something tells me you would prefer the Megaman fan movies (i.e. pansy teens in costumes) to the Terminator because OMFG CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!!!! Yes, Terminator has shitty character development, especially for the Terminator, but, that's just simply not the point.

You complain about a heartless serial killer with an extensive knowledge of natural poisons being part of the ensemble, when the original movie had Hawkins.

Lulz, reading fail! I compained about Topher Grace being in a movie that is supposed to be a successor to a movie with Arnold, etc., etc. Note, how my only comment concerning him was that "he was the whimp from That 70's Show, what is he doing here?" I didn't say a thing about his character, which, while we're on it, he failed miserably at portraying. Hawkings dude as an actor would've been better, as a character, Topher was better, but only because he served a different purpose.

Hawkings served as a contrast to teh badassery of the rest of the cast. Predators 2 and AvP had nothing but Hawkings, atleast compared to the original. Besides, if you watch the developer's commentary, you would hear that Predator was meant to be a kind of homage to Vietnam with the Predator representing ever-present fear. Hawkings demonstrates the cowardice in soldiers facing death, as opposed to Arnold and the rest. So, he serves a valuable purpose for the movie's original intent before it became a franchise.

I've seen raw bacon with more spine than this guy.

In all honesty, the majority of the public wouldn't react any better than he did. Especially internet dwelling forum goers. Miami scares the shit out of even the tougher citizens and it's not even close.

[Hawki]

Not quite. IIRC, I was commenting that, as a result of the new "cubicle" environment that we are in, i.e. classrooms, etc., as well as just about everything we need being met with ease, that men, as a whole, are losing what it means to be men and lamented the fact that anyone trying to break from this mold is seen as having some kind of mental illness. Aggression/Competition and self-confidence are almost clinical flaws, not just by authorities but by men themselves yet they've been the stape of male-kind up until a few decades ago.. The proof is pretty much self-evident all around us. The only people that I've found to disagree are those who themselves (seem to be) semi-immasculated. You know somethings wrong when prominent feminazis from the 70's are now writing books about the demise of the "real man".

(Just so you know I'm not bullshitting, http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...+demise+of+men)

I can get what you're getting at, but it's not something I really have an issue with. Yes, things are easier for the average person nowadays then even, say, half a century ago, but the quality of human life has always been improving over time. And I don't see why gender should define an individual. Obviously there are biological factors in regards to gender, but in societal expectations, I think it's stupid to label something as being exclusively in the realm of a specific gender, whether it be how one acts to their realm of interests.

Tychus Findlay]That's sad bro. When it comes down to it, you prefer a tenuous albeit arguably marginal increase in depth of characters to absolute badassery. Something tells me you would prefer the Megaman fan movies (i.e. pansy teens in costumes) to the Terminator because OMFG CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!!!! Yes, Terminator has shitty character development, especially for the Terminator, but, that's just simply not the point.

I've mentioned earlier how badassedness and character aren't mutually exclusive, so I won't go on a rant here. I will mention though that I felt that Terminator had decent character development, though in this area (like many others), I felt that Judgement Day improved on it, along with being more badass. Forget who said it, but T1 is akin to a sci-fi slasher, whereas T2 is more in the realm of speculative sci-fi, resulting in a better story. And there's the fact that the T-1000 remains my favourite Terminator model to date.

(I'll throw in that my preference of Terminator movies goes T2, T1, T4, T3. Bite me.)

[TheEconomist]

I think it's stupid to label something as being exclusively in the realm of a specific gender

Take it up with nature. Man is as testosterone does. Simple.

If I were to inject you with testosterone, your "male" behaviors would be amplified. Likewise, there is a strong correlation between your baseline testosterone levels and your "male" behaviors. There's nothing you can do about it.

And I don't see why gender should define an individual.

It's hard to tell to what extent you are implying here, but, you are very much defined by your gender, even more so than by societies expectations of your gender.

Science is lovely. Let's leave it at that.

I'll throw in that my preference of Terminator movies goes T2, T1, T4, T3. Bite me.

It's a wonder that your opinion is the opposite for Predator, given the somewhat similar comparisons.


@Quirrel:

A limp-wristed parody of action movies?

Didn't see this before.

I'm hoping that this was just another one of your emotional outbursts that you are prone to do when someone disagrees with you. If you think that Predator is either a joke or "limp-wristed" then you are not a man. This time, instead of joking, I mean this sincerely.

[Hawki]

I'm not arguing with nature. I've got nothing against nature. I don't resent the fact that men are more aggressive than women on average, or that the female psyche takes personality into account more than men when choosing mates, while males have more of a predisposition towards physical attractiveness. I've got nothing against testosterone, or having my reproductive organs on the outside.

(Except when I got kneed in them in a school fight, but that's another story.)

That being said, it doesn't help when society makes impositions based on these tendencies. For example, males are probably more likely to go into fields such as military or law enforcement, based on nature. There's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong though, is saying that females can't enter these fields, even if they want to.

It's a wonder that your opinion is the opposite for Predator, given the somewhat similar comparisons.

Well, it's not a perfect comparison, as while I've seen all four Terminator films, I haven't seen Predator 2 or Requiem. If I had to rate what I had seen, it would go Predator-Predators-Alien vs. Predator in order of preference.

I'll also throw in that for Aliens, my order of preference goes Aliens-Alien-Alien 3-Alien vs. Predator-Resurrection.

Goes to show that James Cameron has a thing for making succesful sequels I guess.

[TheEconomist]

What is wrong though, is saying that females can't, even if they want to.

Come on, bro. Don't go mangina on me now. You know damn well that wasn't what I was saying or at all related to what we're talking about.


... Can we please get off this now?

[Hawki]

Well, not sure exactly what point you were trying to make in the first place, but I'm perfectly willing to let the matter drop.

In the interest of starting a new topic, I'll pitch this out-what movies have you (and everyone else) seen this year so far, and what do you think of them? I'll go out on a limb and list the ones I've seen, though keep in mind that they're not all theatrical. Rather, the criteria for inclusion is me having seen them for the first time this year:

-The Iron Lady (2/5)

-Puss in Boots (3/5)

-The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (4/5)

-Hugo (4/5)

-The Descendents (5/5)

-Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (2/5)

-Alice in Wonderland (2010) (3/5)

Best so far would be The Descendents, while Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy stands as the worst for me so far.

Discuss, post, etc.

[TheEconomist]

not sure exactly what point you were trying to make in the first place

I wasn't making a point. Quirrel brought up a topic from about two years ago and I was correcting his interpretation

Not sure why he brought it up though. Maybe some kind of roundabout ad hominem?

[Quirel]

True, but even disgarding the vessels themselves, the Prometheus crew seems to have access to better equipment such as stasis pods and environmental suits. There's indeed the question of funding, but if Weyland Industries could afford such high-tech equipment for an expedition based on scientific curiosity, one would assume they could do the same for a crew hauling millions worth in ore.

I've got a few theories, but nothing really solid. Just that the Nostromo was designed to make a years-long trip and make that trip scores of times over. Older, less flashy but more reliable tech might have been factored into the design.

Except Archeron is a moon, not a planet, so tidal locking seems moot.

Query what happens if a moon with atmosphere becomes tidally locked to its planet.

Thing I do remember vaguely, and not sure if it's from the film or novelization, is that the Nostromo landed on a side of the planet opposite the sun. That could account for weather differences, and with little heat retention, that would allow for some crazy shifts in temperature.

Agreed.

And allowing their weaponry to fall into 'ooman hands as well (assuming the nuclear reference is to Requiem, not including the mini-nuke in Predator.

The mini-nuke actually. Disabling a reactor's coolant systems wouldn't exactly cause a nuclear explosion.

Certainly wondered how that nuke would go down in the international community. The day when the meme "kill it with fire" was applied on the official level...

Hmm... The CIA would probably have been on the ground soon after to investigate the explosion, and the Soviet Union would probably have had Advisers in the country. Given that the Cold War was beginning to thaw, I don't think either country's intelligence agency would blame the other for the nuclear explosion.

I wanted to make a joke here about swamp gas, but I'm just too tired.