Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
'yamerias' wrote on '10:
I like so many quotes…but my current fave is as follows:
“It can't rain all the time” Eric Draven (The Crow)
Aw, the Crow. That had some great lines, I should watch it again.
'IvanAleisterMesniaa' wrote on '02:Problems are here because we let them. We all need to make a choice between letting go and holding on.
There's no such thing in the world as true soulmates. Most of what you feel is actually a lie.
What you think you want is only the standard that the rest of the world has.
The true test of a man isn't how he treats loved ones, it's how he treats those who make him suffer.
Were all liars, and when you break it down there is no perfect person for each of us, there is only people and what we make of them.
What we do does not define us, it is how we do it, and how we use the time we have left…and live.
^^ By me.
Those are all awesome!
Welcome Caers. We sound like we have stuff in common from the mundane (the variety and number of jobs held, social networking, video games) to more “serious” things like I have multiple anxiety disorders so I try to leave the house as little as possible, but since I must out of necessity, I always try to plan for the times when places are the least crowded.
Hope to see you around the community.
'Hedwig' wrote on '29:Just got back from seeing the new Iron Man 2 movie today…I was lucky enough to have my nephew off school so it gave me a good excuse to take him… 😛
Anyway, let’s get the big question out of the way: Was Iron Man 2 better than the first film..? My answer…Not quite. 😮
Having said that, remember that the first film set the bar high, so not topping it doesn’t mean this sequel was bad….far from it….what it means is that while I liked it a lot, I didn’t quite love it like I did the first film….
There is more than a hint of Avengers foundation-laying here through multiple appearances by Nick Fury and mentions of SHIELD, but it feels more like icing on the cake rather than a driver of the story……
The action sequences surpassed the first film in both quantity, quality and length, I won't go into to detail as I wouldn't want to spoil things too much for you…
Overall you shouldn’t be disappointed and Iron Man 2 is a great way to kick off the 2010 summer movie season. Oh, and do hang around to watch the full credits…you won't be disappointed…. 😛 😛
Thanks for the review. I was one of the rare people thought Iron Man was good, but not great. But I saw huge potential. (Kinda like how I thought Transformers 1 was okay, but Transformers 2 was awesome.)
I look forward to seeing this one!!! Sounds like the action sequences are at least going to be with it. I thought that moment with Nick Fury's “hidden cameo” alone made me want to see Iron Man 2. Lol.
Kik–by the way, just to clarify, just wanted to say even though we clearly disagree on this, it's nice to have someone to have such a-more-in-depth-than-average movie discussion with. I look forward to debating (or agreeing?) with you in the future.
'Kik' wrote on '29:The moneymen wouldn't spend money on a project they doubted they'd receive a return on, in this case a Disney-fied version of Year One. Violence is exciting, dark is cool and modern audiences have been shelling out for this on mass since The Empire Strikes Back. That tightrope is thicker then you give it credit for.
Well, clearly we can agree to disagree. I'm well aware of how the studio system works, particularly post-Jaws, post-Star Wars, and I'm also fully aware of things like all the indie auters doing kids movies (Spike Jonze, Wes Anderson, etc.) because those are the projects they could actually get financed, versus the kind of work they usually do. At the end of the day, to quote Puff Daddy, “It's all about the Benjamins.”
Welcome. 🙂
Well, if you're offering up your posts as a cure for insomnia, I feel obligated to offer mine up as a cure to YOUR insomnia.
You'll notice a trend of them being ridiculously long. Lol.
Good to have you here.
Am I the only one looking forward to the new Nightmare on Elm Street???
I generally hate remakes and relaunches of franchises with a passion, but aside it from having the wonderful Katie Cassidy (who, as anyone knows from my Twitter avatar, I think is the best thing since “I Can't Believe It's Not Butter,”) but because horror, in more recent years, has actually been chruning out some quite tolerable retreads.
Many of these old classics are still classics, but very dated. The original “Halloween” was highly influential, a classic, it's still very tense…but also IMO, very dated. The new Halloween, much as I disliked much of it, elevated it to more modern standards. Even the new Friday the 13th, which is by no means a classic or anything, just I'm surprised at how many of these re-launches and remakes are actually finding a great balance in the inherent horror structure of being a little tacky, a little retro, and a lot more bloody and the whole texture in many of these films seems to pay homage, much as it wants to make a dollar, much as it wants to reinvigorate and modernize said franchise.
'Kik' wrote on '27:Not really.
This new series wouldn't have existed without Frank Miller's Year One/The Dark Knight Returns. (My copy of the Dark Knight Returns was published in 1986). The Year One story (among other things) describes the birth of Batman, Gordon dealing with corruption, Harvey Dent becoming Batman's ally, Falcone's mafia and drugs racket etc. I'm pretty sure a number of Nolan's Batman's gadets turn up like the device that calls the bats to him. It ends with a nod to the next chapter of the Joker planning to poison Gotham's water system. At the start of the Dark Knight Returns, the 'baddies' are the mutants who are anarchic teenagers going around committing crimes and causing havoc for the hell of it.
Identical plot points aside, Nolan's Batman Begins project was only accepted after Darren Aronofsky and Frank Miller paved the way with their considerably darker and grittier Year One script. Hollywood okayed the new, darker Batman to take the franchise into a new direction after the damage Joel Schumacher had done. All Nolan really did was to make an adult-orientated comic palatable for Hollywood execs.
You can bet your bottom dollar, had Batman and Robin been a success (like Batman Forever), we would have seen a whole bunch of George Clooney-shaped Batman movies with cartoon baddies and batsuits with nipples. 😀
Yes, I am completely aware of its Frank Miller origins, along with some other darker, more obscure of the Batman comic ouvre that was basically, well, ripped off. I am well aware of the various attempts over the years to head this direction.
But sometimes, that's what I admire most about (in this Christopher Nolan's “The Dark Knight,”) or someone like J.J. Abrams (LOST, FRINGE, STAR TREK 2009, CLOVERFIELD), they manage to make things are not necessarily novel, revolutionary, or even THAT original, but they somehow manage to walk the wicked-thin tight rope of appealing to mass audiences, while maintaining the richer, darker elements.
That's why I feel bad for someone like Joss Whedon, who I think is a certifiable genius, but with the exception of his “written by” credit on Toy Story (first one, I believe) and the mostly internet/dvd sensation of “Dr. Horrible,” has been unable to draw in mass appeal with creative complexity. He remains a cult hero and Internet worshipped genius, that or critics, meanwhile his last two shows were cancelled almost before they even started.
I guess as someone who frequently gets a “love it!” or “wtf was that?!” response to my own creative endeavors, I have a great admiration for people like the aforementioned, and people like Steven Spielberg, who maintain some sense of creative integrity, but making a product that SELLS. It's a pretty elusive, relatively small group, IMO, of filmmakers and screenwriters, directors, etc. that can do that.
I have mad respect for Frank Miller and Darren Arronofsky…but I have to say, people for the most part still view movies as entertainment, not art. And the majority of my personal movie collection are movies that are bleak, depressing, disturbing, French, indie, or European, and I can never get anyone to watch them with me. LITERALLY, everyone that looks at my collection is like “Don't you have anything normal for us to watch?” That's why someone on the opposite end of the spectrum like James Cameron is so successful, he dishes out the junk that people like to eat with their popcorn, and if they're lucky enough to be at the right theatre, their beer.
Okay, my new monthly list (again, in no particular order)
1. My brain. By that I mean, by readjusting the pharmaceutically-induced brain rut I was in, my brain was basically “off” for several years. To explain, I had zero creativity, lacking mental focus and clarity (couldn't even read a book anymore, something I used to do voraciously), and I just felt dull, even dumb…but now that I've readjusted said meds, my brain is “on” again, which in turn has allowed me to be both active in being creative again, and being “sharp” or “smart” enough to pursue my first gradual step to the real world again, doing publicity/PR for an animal rescue organization. (Pending the approval of the board members. Wish me luck!)
2. Friends. That really should just be a freebie and not have to count as one. Not just the fantastic new people I've met here on Insomnia Land, but having found out repeatedly in life that many so-called friends are not really “actual” friends, I really value the people in my life that are.
3. Cheating again by saying “gadgets.” Blackberry, iPod, etc. I count these as one because I use them both for essentially mostly similar things, though one can do what cannot, and another can do better what the other does not do well.
'Martin' wrote on '28:Do you have a rubber ducky? You have to at least have a battleship or a submarine!
Ah, that brings a fond (though it may not sound fond) memory of when I was young, and this friend of my Mother's (they've been married for years, but due to various issues, like jobs) I often lived with one parent or another. So at the time, it was just my Mom & me, and this friend of hers, was sort of a father figure in a way.
He was trying hard to “be there,” “raise me,” “get me to like him,” and he brought over this Mickey rubber ducky for lack of a better way. Basically a floating Mickey in a boat, that I think was supposed to blow bubbles or do something besides simply accomplishing the feat of not sinking.
Alas, it did not go well.
I think someone needs to bring back battleships, and rubber duckies, kids today–man, they are missing out.
Wow, I never knew angels was such a complex subject and hierarachy and grouping system.
I'll be honest, I kind of skimmed (I will look at it more later–and I'd be fascinated to see what you dig up on demons.)
I consider myself “spiritual” and “meta-physical” but even those are misnomers, because they tend to imply a certain dogma, particular beliefs, and “meta-physical” mentions generally get people to assume you are crazy.
However, I was raised Christian (mainly of the evangelical variety, which I detested), went to Catholic school briefly (where I was constantly irritating the nuns by debating them) and have since settled into…what I consider personal things I believe or feel, but am generally against organized religion (any, no specific one) though I see both value & detriment in them in contemporary and their empirical complications and involvement throughout history.
I've never really researched the subject as thoroughly as you have, but angels are something I'm neutral on.
Neutral is a bit deceiving too, it doesn't mean for me a lack of opinion, rather it involves an elimiation of opinions.
It's certainly not unreasonable under traditional and reformed Judaism, or Christianity, to assume that God would have a group of beings…again, as mentioned in a different post, my brain is not working, but basically that he would have a group of beings doing his work. Not that theoretically he couldn't do it himself, but if I remember (I'm a little rusty) my teachings at church, etc. the angels were a separate entity from humans, and I think it was mentioned that humans were somehow above angels on the heirarchy, because we were God's children on Earth–I was told that a lot, and that never made sense to me given the implied purity of such beings and their role throughout the Bible.
I'm sure other religions have comparable entitities to angels, as much as I enjoy comparative religious studied (it's pretty fascinating, even if I don't ally myself with one group or another).
It's also interesting to note the differences between Old Testament and New Testament. To ridiculously simplify, old testament God and his angels are pretty ruthless. New Testament was more focused on Jesus dying for our sins and reads more positively. Throw Revelatations in the mix and we've come full circle.
I think my imagery of an angel and what they do and what it must be like, was largely influenced for me, at least philosophically, by the wonderful, pensive German classic from Wim Wenders (sp?), “Wings of Desire.”
If you haven't seen it, I highly suggest it to someone interested in the subject of angels. It postulates angels as observers who occasionally intervene, watching over, protecting at times. And it furthers the notion that one in particular gains an intense desire to BE human, to LIVE and EXPERIENCE instead of always observing. It kind of quasi-aligns with the traditional view, while staying true to my own that, if they exist, they exist in such a capacity. Not like them swooping down and whisking someone out of a car crash, but a sort of network, which fits well with the idea of multiple variations and heirarchy.
Nah, I was just being silly. I do that less so here, but ask Lindsay, being ridiculously silly is…kinda my thing.
Oh wow, moving to California. Well, as an almost 10 year resident of California let me pop open a bottle of British wine to welcome your arrival. Wait a minute…I don't think I've ever had a British wine. But I can bring some brie!!!
I grew up moving all over (including about 5 different cities in TX) but I absolutely love California of all the places I've visited and lived in. I really can't imagine myself living anywhere else, due in no small part to the fact that most of the state has such incredibly moderate and amazing weather (not counting today.)
Where in the state are you thinking of moving to???
