The Energon Pub

All my efforts at peacemaking have been thwarted... I think I'll go sit in the corner instead.

Shadowman wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

Shadowman wrote:That's about the most hypocritical thing in this entire thread.

I'm still waiting on him to actually contribute to the conversation. Until then accusations of hypocracy are unfounded. I don't give children on the internet the time of day.

Wow, are you being serious right now? Go re-read what Starscream Gaga said about Citizen Kane and the "plot hole" you brought up. Then go sit in the corner.

Whatever. I tried to talk to you intelligently, but that's apparently not your cup of tea. If someone I used to hold to a higher regard is gonna fall to Starscream GaGa's level of logic then there's no point in continuing this topic.

Capt.Failure wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

Shadowman wrote:That's about the most hypocritical thing in this entire thread.

I'm still waiting on him to actually contribute to the conversation. Until then accusations of hypocracy are unfounded. I don't give children on the internet the time of day.

Wow, are you being serious right now? Go re-read what Starscream Gaga said about Citizen Kane and the "plot hole" you brought up. Then go sit in the corner.

Whatever. I tried to talk to you intelligently, but that's apparently not your cup of tea. If someone I used to hold to a higher regard is gonna fall to Starscream GaGa's level of logic then there's no point in continuing this topic.

So I take it you're not going to, then? Because it actually does disprove your point about Citizen Kane.

And no, you didn't actually try to talk to me intelligently. You just kept restating your argument while ignoring everything anyone said that disproved it.

Shadowman wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

Shadowman wrote:That's about the most hypocritical thing in this entire thread.

I'm still waiting on him to actually contribute to the conversation. Until then accusations of hypocracy are unfounded. I don't give children on the internet the time of day.

Wow, are you being serious right now? Go re-read what Starscream Gaga said about Citizen Kane and the "plot hole" you brought up. Then go sit in the corner.

I haven't seen Citizen Kane, but I have seen the opening scene. There was no one in the room with him. He whispered "rosebud" and dropped the snow globe. That's when the nurse came in the room.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

Shadowman wrote:That's about the most hypocritical thing in this entire thread.

I'm still waiting on him to actually contribute to the conversation. Until then accusations of hypocracy are unfounded. I don't give children on the internet the time of day.

Wow, are you being serious right now? Go re-read what Starscream Gaga said about Citizen Kane and the "plot hole" you brought up. Then go sit in the corner.

I haven't seen Citizen Kane, but I have seen the opening scene. There was no one in the room with him. He whispered "rosebud" and dropped the snow globe. That's when the nurse came in the room.

I haven't seen Citizen Kane either. I do know that just ignoring something that someone said and instead treating them like a child does not qualify as a counter-argument, though.

Capt.Failure wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

Shadowman wrote:That's about the most hypocritical thing in this entire thread.

I'm still waiting on him to actually contribute to the conversation. Until then accusations of hypocracy are unfounded. I don't give children on the internet the time of day.

Wow, are you being serious right now? Go re-read what Starscream Gaga said about Citizen Kane and the "plot hole" you brought up. Then go sit in the corner.

Whatever. I tried to talk to you intelligently, but that's apparently not your cup of tea. If someone I used to hold to a higher regard is gonna fall to Starscream GaGa's level of logic then there's no point in continuing this topic.

My level of logic? Do you even understand what you are saying? Should I instead be at your level of logic, using false information and insulting those who reveal it as false?

But I agree, there is no point in continuing this topic. Arguing with someone who refuses to revise their argument after it has been rebutted over and over again and instead results to insults in order to try and divert attention away from their loss is about as useful as trying the shave your face with a comb.

And you can't say that something happens in a movie when you haven't seen it yourself. The nurse/maid DID hear Kane say "rosebud" and the fact that she told this to Jerry is the driving point fo the film. I have studied this film, I'm not pulling stuff out of my ass abotu a movie I've never seen like you have.

Same with LOTR. I've seen the movies, I've read the book, the eagles could NOT have taken the Fellowship to Mordor, for many reasons which have all been stated and you have chosen to ignore and instead insulted me for proving you wrong.

Starscream GaGa wrote:1...shave your face with a comb.

2And you can't say that something happens in a movie when you haven't seen it yourself. The nurse/maid DID hear Kane say "rosebud" and the fact that she told this to Jerry is the driving point fo the film. I have studied this film, I'm not pulling stuff out of my ass abotu a movie I've never seen like you have.

3Same with LOTR. I've seen the movies, I've read the book, the eagles could NOT have taken the Fellowship to Mordor, for many reasons which have all been stated and you have chosen to ignore and instead insulted me for proving you wrong.

Agreed. Just thought I'd try to add...

1 I've got a late start at work today, and still need to shave, so I thank you for the advice on not doing so with a comb. Oh, if I had a penny for every time I tried doing this....

2 Even if the nurse wasn't in the room, and don't think I'm fighting anyone on that point, it is very well established by the reporters watching News on the March that Kane's last word was rosebud, and that the nurse heard him say it, and that the film will now focus on what it meant. I've seen the movie probably 30 times, and while I'm not trying to sound too-cool, it is pretty obvious that someway or another the final word was heard by a nurse or maid who'd taken it to the press. My problem with the holes in RotF is that they aren't explained, or if they are, are done so via the novelization and cardbacks of figures and other out of movie sources. IF Kane's last word is not heard by a visible nurse, the next couple minutes of the film more than retcon it, whereas RotF doesn't.
Also, I'm not a film student or anyhting like that, but regardless of if RotF is your favorite movie evereverEVER or not, to put it in the same conversation as Citizen Kane is really, really a poor choice. When people overly criticize RotF they often get told it was just a summer popcorn movie, an action film, and not supposed to be Citizen Kane. Bay claims he recieved death threats over his treatment of the franchise; Orson Wells fell under attack from the entire stable of Hearst affiliates. Bay got death threats? Mmm hmm, and the Twins will/on't be in DotM......right? "Oh, disregard spoilers and info, Bay's a master of misinformation....." but we're supposed to believe he got death threats. If Bay told me today was Wednesday I'd go check my calendar.
Regardless of my tangent, Citizen Kane is a landmark film in the history of cinema. Maybe someday RotF will be looked at the same way, but even then, it won't be Citizen Kane, which will never be Gone with the Wind, which will never be The Ten Commandments, which....

3 The eagles thing ends up being a huge trolling topic. Why not just fly the ring to Mordor? Because LotR is, as a written fiction, patterned on the old English epics and heroic tales. Why didn't Beowulf just drain the swamp and pre-emptively kill Grendel's mom, or why didn't the Greeks just light Troy on fire and smoke the Trojans out? I know the story details, but the reasons they didn't is because they are stories of heroic journeys and long voyages. One of the foundational elements of epic poetry is that it occurs over a number of years. LotR being patterned on the epics would use that same element. Tolkien was a professor of literature and languages, and he knew about the epics and did it on purpose in his Middle Earth writing. Why didn't the eagles just fly them there is more or less a stupid question intended to make people have this type of arguement, or talk about why LotR is not some cheesy sword and magic movie for nerds.
Also, the ring does corrupt all creatures except Frodo whom the ring chose to bear it, and would we really want giant eagles under the influence of the Ring fighting each other, the Fellowship and ultimately boosting the army of Mordor when there's already so much to contend with?

ok the mistakes in the movies mentioned

1. Citizen Kane

The nurse is not in the room, agreed.

Explanations for hearing rosebud are as follows

- There was someone in the room who wasnt revealed - weak story telling

- The butler who heard him say rosebud before, this is in script, lied and said this was his last words to create a mystery

- The butler saw him say rosebud before in relation to the snowglobe and put two and two together when he saw the shattered globe

2. LOTR

- The eagles would be easily detected, two tiny hobbits on the ground could pass by relatively unnoticed

- saurans forces needed to be distracted before the deed could be completed, couldnt just fly in there when he has complete focus

- possible corruption of the eagles

2001

havent seen it in a while, however i remember the scene, but dont remember the actual build up, not that i doubt your explanation. I can think of no reason offhand other than for story telling purposes


However all these explanations of mine are not fact, they are based on conjecture and opinion, and possble supposition. It doesnt make the errors stated incorrect, i will not end with period, checkmate, game over or some other pithy comment, because i dont know if i am correct.

Burn wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:Has anyone else on this forum been so loud about they're opinion of the movies? Go check out any thread in which the movies are criticized and one or all three will be there going crazy.

There's been much louder over the years. There was a time you couldn't have a thread in the movie forum without one particular person jumping up and down bitching and moaning.

And I don't see the problem with what they're doing, as long as they keep it within the rules of the forum (and if people are curious, Sly's been warned about his language many times).

But what annoys me the most is your attitude towards them. You make them sound like what they're doing is bad, that they're the worst, but you seem to completely overlook all the negative comments that populate the movie forum.

Trust me, since 2009, their positivity is a small drop in the ocean of negative comments that have populated this sub-forum.

And I still don't see a problem with them defending the movies.

hold on now. who said they couldnt defend the movies.

its the way they aggressively jump on people who say they dont like the movies or highlight flaws in the movies.

the last few pages is further evidence of this.

Just because they are positive towards to the movies doesnt mean their behavior should go unchecked. I wouldnt say i am negative towards the movie but critical, there is a difference.

you look at the replies i receive from those two, unprovoked attacks, which if i were to take serious would be tantamount to cyber bullying

my options are

1. only post positive threads
2. dont post at all
3. post my opinion and expect attacks

most of us want civilisd debate, back and forth retorts, and maybe mearning something new. Not "you're a troll", "you're a troll", "you're a troll".

Capt.Failure wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

Chaoslock wrote:There are a LOT of fails like the laser pointer. Gotta catch 'em all!

We just went over them, read back up the thread a few pages. Besides, minor technical and geographical errors are so common in films you can't count them. Only the discussed plot points matter, and we've come to the conclusion that aside from Wheelie's dissapearence, they don't. Your post was pointless.

And why shouldn't it count? Just because other movies are guilty of it doesn't make it okay. I mean they ignore the existence an entire freaking country for no reason! That's not a minor error, that's "You really need to look at a globe sometime."

The entire plot of Citizen Kane falls apart a few seconds in because nobody was in the room with him when he said "Rosebud." Yet that's acceptable.

The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy could have been ended in a few hours if they'd flown the Ring to Mordor via those giant eagles. Even fans of the novels agree that's a gigantic plot hole. Yet that's acceptable

In 2001 a trained astronaut went out in a space pod without a helmet, putting him in a life or death situation when he had to blow the hatch on his pod to reenter the ship. No trained astronaut would do something as stupid as not fully suit up for a spacewalk, no matter how dire the situation. Yet that's acceptable.

Here's my question. Why are these ok, but a geographical error in this film is such a massive sin? When something as simple and common as misreading a map becomes your only remaining arguement, then you've lost. Period.

The difference is, those movies had all of one mistake per movie. ROTF just packs in tons of mind-boggling errors.

While we're at it, the reason they didn't take the Eagles is because they were constantly being tracked and the Nazgul already had their own flying mounts. It's like taking a helicopter to an enemy base while the enemy in question has a squadron of F-22s.

The problem with the errors is that all the ones that matter have been deconstructed with a simple process called observation and application of logical thought. I find it funny this film comes under accusations of only being enjoyed by stupid, ADD addled masses yet critics of it fail to notice so much of the film that they just cast blanket accusations of "plot hole" all over it and call it a day.

Also, your rebuttal to the eagles plot hole in LotR is such bullcrap. Like there wasn't a risk of Nazgul on foot? If anything on foot it was a greater risk because the eagles could avoid them with fancy flying and they'd still get to Mordor in no time flat. The Fellowship plan relied on unreliable companions who the Ring could tempt, a far longer, more dangerous path through terrain of kingdoms who could not be trusted ending in an on foot journey through Mordor itself. This over flying the Ring there on eagles who are able to fight off the Nazgul's fel beast mounts in single combat. And to top it all off...the demigod in their group did nothing with those awesome magic powers until the Balrog showed up. Brilliant strategy right there.

And THAT, my friend, is a plot hole. It fails to hold up under scrutiny, unlike everything (bar Wheelie) listed in RotF. Again, you're back to simple geographical and technical flaws, which are not plot holes. Checkmate.

im sorry, but your approach to factual errors is to use opinion, halfbaked guesses, conjecture, it was a joke and denial. When questioned further its insults and name calling

That does not disprove facts, it blurs the edges only. Its not a checkmate moment, it doesnt mean "we've decided they dont exist", it means you will use as someone said infalsifable reasoning rather than accept that the movies has glaring flaws which require leaps of logic to butter over.

I dont blame bay but somewhere along the line someone could have cracked a map open, why was israel omitted and they got help from jordan, maybe because

1. they are anti semetic (dont believe this)
2. they didnt want to offend muslim sensibilities (offensive in its own way)
3. they are lazy and sloppy
4. Jordan is probably the most US friendly nation in area, outside of usrael

it could be one, two, three, four or none of these.

these are not facts, there are not end of moments, they are opinions. it does not allow me to dismiss others, or their factual statements, it merely allows me to question these facts.

Burn wrote:

Tekka wrote:In the end, yours is the only one you should be worried about, right?

But people NEED to know what I think! The NEED to think like me as they CLEARLY can't think for themselves if they're not thinking like me!
(That's sarcasm for those who are too stoopid to get it)

Bwaaaahahaha! Besides, don't you guys know NOT to argue with Shadowman yet?
Ouch, the burns still hurt...

Tekka wrote:All my efforts at peacemaking have been thwarted... I think I'll go sit in the corner instead.

I sure enjoyed watching you try though! Hehehehe!


Some liked ROTF, some didn't. I think that might be considered a fact.

I'm not scared that DOTM will stink, because I was at the Hall of Fame ceremony and some of the stuff they showed was jawdropping - seems to me there's a story there that's been very well thought out. Ok, just to clarify, that's my opinion there.

It doesn't matter who likes what and who thinks what sucks because it comes down to this: Do YOU like it/hate it? I like seeing why someone has come to the conclusion they have, but I don't think it's necessary to put someone down because I don't agree with their particular feelings/opinions/comments. No matter what, I've never been able to sway someone's opinion with my own, though I have thought about things a different way because of an opinion I did not necessarily agree with. I'm sure DOTM will have it's flaws, and those good at finding those flaws will be sure to tell the rest of us what those flaws are. I'm looking forward to seeing it for the entertainment value it holds for ME. I'm sure I'll tear it down and analyze it in my own way even as I'm enjoying it for what it is: A blockbuster, shoot 'em up, knock down, drag out, explosion-ridden roller coaster of an action movie.

I'll be watching the movie forum after DOTM comes out! Looking forward to seeing what ya'll thought about it!

Stormer wrote:Bwaaaahahaha! Besides, don't you guys know NOT to argue with Shadowman yet?

Why not? It's just a handful of people who have fed his already inflated ego. He's quite boring at the end of the day and best ignored.

Burn wrote:

Stormer wrote:Bwaaaahahaha! Besides, don't you guys know NOT to argue with Shadowman yet?

Why not? It's just a handful of people who have fed his already inflated ego. He's quite boring at the end of the day and best ignored.

Hey I take offense to...well, no, that's about right, come to think of it.

wow, from Michael Bay's Transformers to Citizen Kane. That's a bit of a leap.

craggy wrote:wow, from Michael Bay's Transformers to Citizen Kane. That's a bit of a leap.

Nope. It's a go-to/kneejerk comparison.

RhA wrote:

craggy wrote:wow, from Michael Bay's Transformers to Citizen Kane. That's a bit of a leap.

Nope. It's a go-to/kneejerk comparison.

its kerazzy

typical bay fansformers, comparing a seminal piece of art, which established the grammar of cinema as we know it, a revolution in cinema making, with a movie about an old fart who cries about his sleigh

shamone wrote:

RhA wrote:

craggy wrote:wow, from Michael Bay's Transformers to Citizen Kane. That's a bit of a leap.

Nope. It's a go-to/kneejerk comparison.

its kerazzy

typical bay fansformers, comparing a seminal piece of art, which established the grammar of cinema as we know it, a revolution in cinema making, with a movie about an old fart who cries about his sleigh

Brilliant. This post should be a lesson to all on how to utilize internet sarcasm. I say that without sarcasm....this is a really great post!

shamone wrote:

RhA wrote:

craggy wrote:wow, from Michael Bay's Transformers to Citizen Kane. That's a bit of a leap.

Nope. It's a go-to/kneejerk comparison.

its kerazzy

typical bay fansformers, comparing a seminal piece of art, which established the grammar of cinema as we know it, a revolution in cinema making, with a movie about an old fart who cries about his sleigh

See? Can't you see? That's what society wants you to think. I bet that movie is dog sh!t; nothing special about it at all. But people overreact and think it's the best thing ever. Seminal piece of art, my ass.

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

RhA wrote:

craggy wrote:wow, from Michael Bay's Transformers to Citizen Kane. That's a bit of a leap.

Nope. It's a go-to/kneejerk comparison.

its kerazzy

typical bay fansformers, comparing a seminal piece of art, which established the grammar of cinema as we know it, a revolution in cinema making, with a movie about an old fart who cries about his sleigh

See? Can't you see? That's what society wants you to think. I bet that movie is dog sh!t; nothing special about it at all. But people overreact and think it's the best thing ever. Seminal piece of art, my ass.

Have you or are you just saying it's awful because everyone else says it's good?

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

RhA wrote:

craggy wrote:wow, from Michael Bay's Transformers to Citizen Kane. That's a bit of a leap.

Nope. It's a go-to/kneejerk comparison.

its kerazzy

typical bay fansformers, comparing a seminal piece of art, which established the grammar of cinema as we know it, a revolution in cinema making, with a movie about an old fart who cries about his sleigh

See? Can't you see? That's what society wants you to think. I bet that movie is dog sh!t; nothing special about it at all. But people overreact and think it's the best thing ever. Seminal piece of art, my ass.

Have you or are you just saying it's awful because everyone else says it's good?

Because everyone says it's good, and I've heard that there isn't a single explosion in it. Therefore, it sucks.

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:

RhA wrote:

craggy wrote:wow, from Michael Bay's Transformers to Citizen Kane. That's a bit of a leap.

Nope. It's a go-to/kneejerk comparison.

its kerazzy

typical bay fansformers, comparing a seminal piece of art, which established the grammar of cinema as we know it, a revolution in cinema making, with a movie about an old fart who cries about his sleigh

See? Can't you see? That's what society wants you to think. I bet that movie is dog sh!t; nothing special about it at all. But people overreact and think it's the best thing ever. Seminal piece of art, my ass.

Have you or are you just saying it's awful because everyone else says it's good?

Because everyone says it's good, and I've heard that there isn't a single explosion in it. Therefore, it sucks.

Your reasoning for it sucking, is no more valid than the reasons of those that like it think its good.

SlyTF1 wrote:Because everyone says it's good, and I've heard that there isn't a single explosion in it. Therefore, it sucks.

You're either joking, trolling, or saying you have ADD in this post and I can't tell which one it is.

Bugger it. This thread is going no where and has changed topics so many times.

Sly, told you many times before, curb your language. No more chances.