The Energon Pub

Evil_the_Nub wrote:He referred to himself as I instead of we, almost to the point that they were rubbing it in our faces how badly they did his character. "you ruined MY life, stole MY girl, now I'M going to blah blah blah."

A minor speech quirk that you'd have to have read the comics to catch.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:He's a huge fan favorite and yet they just slapped him in at the last 10 minutes and still focused on Sandman. Then they killed him in the most absolute way they could just to make sure he couldn't come back.

Like Two-Face. And Ra's Al-Ghul. And Iron Monger. And Abomination.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:Like I said they should have just left him out rather than mess him up so badly. Or maybe end the movie at the chapel when he gets the symbiote.

They didn't think there was going to be a fourth film, and I don't think anyone was really counting on it. Regardless, this happened.

And like I said, that's how he was in the early comics.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:Sorry to rant, but I was looking forward to Venom since the first movie.

Obviously Sam Raimi was not. I was hoping more for Bruce Campbell as Mysterio. (And you know that would totally work!)

D-340 wrote:But Peter Jackson? Yeah, he nailed "Rings", but he totally butchered King Kong. He'd most likely F it up much worse than Bay could.

Are you serious? I really don't see how that could be possible.

I think Jackson would have more respect for the source material. Michael Bay blatantly does not. He seems to think he personally owns Transformers now.

Gandalf wrote:

D-340 wrote:But Peter Jackson? Yeah, he nailed "Rings", but he totally butchered King Kong. He'd most likely F it up much worse than Bay could.

Are you serious? I really don't see how that could be possible.

I think it has something to do with what I realized half-way into King Kong: no one wants to watch a movie for three hours. He tried to stretch the plot to King Kong out that long, and it honestly did not work.

Shadowman wrote:

Gandalf wrote:

D-340 wrote:But Peter Jackson? Yeah, he nailed "Rings", but he totally butchered King Kong. He'd most likely F it up much worse than Bay could.

Are you serious? I really don't see how that could be possible.

I think it has something to do with what I realized half-way into King Kong: no one wants to watch a movie for three hours. He tried to stretch the plot to King Kong out that long, and it honestly did not work.

Whatever cuzz

King Kong is just a B monster movie and PJ did the best that could have been done with it.

Grimlock1991 wrote:Whatever cuzz

Is that your argument? Hm. At least I don't have to double post.

King Kong was far too long. Peter Jackson tried to fit what could have been maybe an hour and a half long movie into three hours. And it just didn't work. Yes, he had some nice CGI dinosaurs, but this isn't Jurassic Park, and CGI dinosaurs are not supposed to be a substitute for plot.

And I know that last sentence is a bit contradictory, considering Michael Bay, but then Transformers wasn't three hours long. (And also a few good explosions can be a substitute for plot; just look at Die Hard)

Shadowman wrote:King Kong was far too long. Peter Jackson tried to fit what could have been maybe an hour and a half long movie into three hours. And it just didn't work. Yes, he had some nice CGI dinosaurs, but this isn't Jurassic Park, and CGI dinosaurs are not supposed to be a substitute for plot.

And I know that last sentence is a bit contradictory, considering Michael Bay, but then Transformers wasn't three hours long. (And also a few good explosions can be a substitute for plot; just look at Die Hard)

Shadowman, you know I find you one of the most insightful posters here, but maybe this time we're comparing apples to bricks? King Kong was a movie made off of a movie. Transformers and LOTR both come with much more backstory and mythos than King Kong (I probably have a whole rainforest's worth of death in TF comics), so a writer/director approaching the giant ape already has much less to work with.

The plus: no howling fans screeching that he's ruined the whole thing.
The minus: nothing to work with, which is why King Kong is not such a great movie. What can you do with an ape who grabs a blonde chick?

There's also the point that King Kong was originally an imperialist morality play--it's a bad idea to try to bring the jungle back and pretend it's safe and controlled. Same way that Godzilla was a nuclear horror movie. We don't really need those basic lessons that underpinned the original stories now, so these movies have nothing, just hollowness, at the core.

Though to be honest, the apogee of crap movies to me is the Ang Lee _Hulk_. (shudder).

HK, today's topic: rendition.

Gandalf wrote:

ShGarland_1383 wrote:if I'm gonna get pissed off over this news, it's not gonna be over the fact that he's doing it itself. It's why he's doing it. It's like fraking with G1 just because you didn't like one thing or another. It just doesn't seem right to me that he's willing to kill off a character just because he doesn't like her.

Exactly.

Why even reveal this? This guy has such an ego it's ridiculous. It's like he's flaunting the fact that he can screw with this property however he wants, and he knows that it irritates people, and he loves it. That's the only reasoning I can come up with for so much of his idiocy.

It's so he can feed on the negative emotions in the fanbase. He feeds and grows, and becomes the stuff of legends and superstitions. Some say, that if you look into his eyes on a dark and moonless night, you can see the flicker of explosions in his dark and manic stare.

hellkitty wrote:

Shadowman wrote:King Kong was far too long. Peter Jackson tried to fit what could have been maybe an hour and a half long movie into three hours. And it just didn't work. Yes, he had some nice CGI dinosaurs, but this isn't Jurassic Park, and CGI dinosaurs are not supposed to be a substitute for plot.

And I know that last sentence is a bit contradictory, considering Michael Bay, but then Transformers wasn't three hours long. (And also a few good explosions can be a substitute for plot; just look at Die Hard)

Shadowman, you know I find you one of the most insightful posters here, but maybe this time we're comparing apples to bricks? King Kong was a movie made off of a movie. Transformers and LOTR both come with much more backstory and mythos than King Kong (I probably have a whole rainforest's worth of death in TF comics), so a writer/director approaching the giant ape already has much less to work with.

The plus: no howling fans screeching that he's ruined the whole thing.
The minus: nothing to work with, which is why King Kong is not such a great movie. What can you do with an ape who grabs a blonde chick?

There's also the point that King Kong was originally an imperialist morality play--it's a bad idea to try to bring the jungle back and pretend it's safe and controlled. Same way that Godzilla was a nuclear horror movie. We don't really need those basic lessons that underpinned the original stories now, so these movies have nothing, just hollowness, at the core.

Though to be honest, the apogee of crap movies to me is the Ang Lee _Hulk_. (shudder).

HK, today's topic: rendition.

No no, I'm not comparing TF ad King Kong, I'm just saying Peter Jackson's movies tend to drag on quite a bit.

EDIT:

King Kong didn't NEED to be three hours long, and it suffered because of it. It could have easily been half of that. This is my same problem with 2001: A Space Odyssey; yes, it is a great movie, but did Stanley Kubrick really NEED all of those miscolored landscapes and extended, motionless shots of a single room?