TheChris92

A cop-out argument is to assume that everything bad about a film can solely be blamed on the director, screenwriters or even the actors etc -- It reminds me of that classic argument "God moves in mysterious ways", trying to deny the ugliness before you so hard that the fabric of reality seems to change before you. No one is denying the atrocity of Lucas' dialogue as seen in some of his other films that aren't Star Wars related. I get the feeling it's partly because some people seem to have a different idea of a director's job actually involves. The fact that Mark Wahlberg's acting is **** in most of the film he's done cannot be blamed on the writing as much as it can be put on his ability as an actor. Are we to assume the reason why he's quite good in The Departed is because of Martin Scorsese? Not really, right? Even the most atrocious film can be held up by its actors to a degree like Christian Bale in Reign of Fire. I know for a fact that Hayden is ****e if Jumper or Taken is anything to judge from. I'm gonna use another example -- Lars Von Trier's Nymphomanaic has Shia LeBeof on the cast, whom surprisingly does a good job but it's mostly due to the fact that Trier likes to hold his hands over the actors with an iron fist. He always do that to a large extent. All directors have different approaches to how they want their actors and etc. to perform, sometimes the producer's word will overshadow the director's, but in Trier's case it's different. It's all on him. It's hard to say then if Shia actually has some sort of potential or not. It's like trying to excuse the fact that Nicholas Cage has done nothing but subpar performances after another but it's okay because he was quite brilliant in Leaving Las Vegas, which beckons the question of whether or not he wants to take his career seriously or is simply in it for the cash.

You're telling me, we are pretty much swarmed with games involving a post-apocalyptic scenario almost as much aszombies, and most of them are jarring & uninteresting with the few exceptions such as The Last of Us. In relations to Fallout, the thing we were talking about, I'd like to see a 'Fallout' game outside of the US for once. At the very least an RPG that is.

Surprised nobody brought up Padmé & Anakin.

Personally, I would love to see Obsidian make a Fallout game(like NewVegas) set in the ruins of New York City. Would be worth it to see Deathclaws infesting Madison Square Garden. Ain't enough games taking place in New York - What's one more gonna hurt? Personally I'd go for something outside of the US but that's too much to hope for I guess.

Need to finish the game -- Love me some Jeanette Voerman. One of my favorite Grey DeLisle voiced characters.

I'm honestly of the view that DA:I is going to be an amazing game. I think Bioware has learnt from the past mistakes of DA2 and the gameplay and fun factor of DA:I is going to blow us away I'm with Bruce here - The game does look promising, if the gameplay is anyway near that of Dragon's Dogma or Dark Souls, then it's gonna be a fun action game. I doubt it'll be any more an RPG than DA2 was but as long as the gameplay and everything is at least fun to play than that's good enough. Think I'll end up getting it on the PS4 since they've dropped that imported save nonsense and I can't afford a new PC now. Gonna have to save up for one later. Admittedly though, there aren't really that many other games I actually care or is excited about, coming out yet. I've mostly seen myself going backwards and playing older games before the evil of DRM & pre-order DLC.

The main character is basically Batman now, and the story is heading towards Central Station of Genericness. The trailer didn't do it much credit, as it hyped it up like a rollercoaster of exploding set-pieces. Disappointing I'd say.

Looks a lot less impressive than when it was announced 2 years ago.

It doesn't quite beat the best review for RE4 HD --- The first one in the following column.

Definitely the most entertaining show involving medical professionals I've seen. I do love its occasional self-awareness, such as when Cox starts imitating House due to their rather similar mannerisms.

I always thought Scrubs was pretty whacky, and only occasionally bended in reality -- It had an entire episode play out like a musical, because some random female patient apparently suffers from a disease, where everyone around her would communicate entirely in song, despite the fact that from their point of view they do not -- so Cox goes lengths of trying to explain to the woman that she's probably mental. It was damn entertaining, but it also quite powerful when the show occasionally leaned toward a more serious tone. There's also an episode where main character J.D is fantasizing his entire workday as a sitcom.

Loved that show right up untill Season 9 - Then again, it already had an ending so that one can easily be ignored.

Wasn't really arguing it did; I think most people admit even if they enjoyed RotJ (and I did, but know many who didn't) that there are parts of it that are creatively compromised. As an aside I don't think the cute fuzzy bear approach was necessarily bad, they could have done something interesting with it. Instead it was a slapstick routine and I don't think it ultimately worked. Well, glad to see we can agree on that then.

I spent around 110 hours in Oblivion. I think Skyrim has it beat in wilderness environments. Dungeons are also slightly better. Not a big fan of the cities in Skyrim, though. They are boring. Blasphemy - Sly 2 will always be the best. I'll have to give this one a go. It's always worrisome when an excellent franchise gets handed over to new developers. I played the PS2 games fairly long ago, so I don't remember 100%, but the game has some annoying camera issues in rare cases. The controls are also a teeny bit worse than I remember. I like the introduction to Sly's ancestors and they are fairly fun to play as. I was skeptical at first, but I must say I have had fun. I'm on the 3rd of 6 chapters. Sounds good to me -- I've recently found myself replaying Crash 3 Warped on my Vita -- Longing for the days when 3D platformers were the ****, and the kind of games I adored the most. I can at best assume it's at least on par with the other Sly games, so that's fine. Whenever it goes down in price I might get it for the Vita and eventually the collection too.

Well I am completely jaded so that sounds about right. I found the Jawas more adorable, especially the one you get as a companion in TOR. He just might be the best companion in that game.

I wasn't denying that -- but his role could best be summed up as a consultant on the story front, whereas the actual screenplay was drafted by Leigh & Kasdan. It started out completely different from how it eventually became, then it was re-written by Kasdan. Which doesn't change the fact that their implementation was about as subtle as a spermwhale in a airplane luggage compartment -- The furry rats of Endor was originally conceived to be a slithery band of reptilian lizard creatures, which actually might have worked well looking from a contrast perspective – the evil Empire being brought down by something equally scary and slimy (but fundamentally misunderstood.) This did not sit right with Lucas though, so he got skittish, and changed them to everybody's favorite litter picking devices, Ewoks – essentially Native American teddybears -- Like you said, for marketing purposes, ready to be snapped up and snuggled by countless children the world over. The laws of 'Return of the Jedi' weren't governed by art or common sense or the needs and requirements of Kasdan's screenplay – the revenue generated from action figures, boxes of novelty cereal and pajamas governed them.

Blasphemy - Sly 2 will always be the best. I'll have to give this one a go. It's always worrisome when an excellent franchise gets handed over to new developers.

Return of the Jedi was the beginning of Star Wars' decline that would set stage for the prequel'sawfulness. It introduces us to a bunch of furry gophers, whom would single handly taking down anpowerful expanding technology superior empire. Because **** the man, right? Everybody knows the little man will always tremble the bullies with the ever reliable power of plot convienience. Lucas’ bizarre and ever-present fascination with little people didn’t hurt the first two films. The Jawas were cool. The Ugnaughts were cool. Kenny Baker as Artoo was cool. But George had to push his luck. The Ewoks are not cool.

Lucas was a consultant on the story, but he didn't write Empire, that was all on Kasdan & Leigh - The originalscript was headed by Leigh, which is quite different from what Empire eventually turned out to be when it was re-written. It's about asgood as it gets with Lucas is all I'm gonna bother to say about that pile of tripe.

George's "vision" is what made Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a terrible movie -- It's quite simple ,because he's not cut-out as a director, and definitely not a screenplay writer, examples of that being Willow or the Prequel trilogy -- Because what George Lucas writes isn't so much writing as it is vomiting through a pen. He probably has some ideas but they should be taken with massive amounts of salt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbXV-eMY9nc

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but my memory is that almost all of the important subplots and character arcs in EMPIRE got resolved in RETURN, not in EMPIRE. Han captured - Return Luke's vision quest - never resolved Luke and the Dark Side - Return Han and Leia's romance - Return Lando's betrayal - Return Heck the shocking twist (although I'd rate, say, the end of Chinatown a bit more surprising, for example) is all about "tune in next time..." As I said, it has been awhile since I've seen the film, but I can't think of an important story element in EMPIRE that isn't just left dangling at the end of Empire. To my mind, that's part of the point - ESB was always the one that could most replicate the Flash Gordon serials of yesteryear that Star Wars patterned itself after. Well, yes, it does set up things for a sequel, but the subplots in Empire are nicely wrapped to a satisfying degree -- Perhaps you could call it a 'resoluted', in a narrative sense -- it is not necessarily a dramatic problem that's fixed, but a thematic question that's answered. Kind of like how a fight is over when you're knocked out, not when you're helped to regain conciousness. Luke, the boy who has no patience, rushes off to have his ass handed to him, mentally and physically. Han gambles with the lives of people he loves, and is punished for doing so - he's wrong, and Leia's there to see it, just like she wanted. It might end with the promise that things are to be rectified in the next instalment, but the characters make journeys that are fully satisfying. At this point I almost feel like writing a review of the film, but I don't feel the need to justify my opinion, since it'll at best fall on deaf ears, so it's futile either way. Although I am always up for writing an analysis for fun in the movie thread whenever I get back to watching it again I suppose.

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well. Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least. JJAbrams is an average director. But I don't consider any of the Star Wars film as particularly well directed. I'm not a fan, as it were, and I don't think that at this point in the very bloated SW universe a movie can be made that will bring back the magic for those who grew up around the originals even if you hire the best possible directors. Back in the day, when it was a fairy tale without a ton of lore hanging around its neck, there was a lot more room for creativity. Empire Strikes Back was extraordinarily well directed, and what I'd consider a marvel visually & audio wise, whether or not you think that its plot can hold up to the standards of today is arguable, I suppose. It set a standard for social aesthetics of future generations of today, which none of the other movies ever managed to reach. It followed up with a more mature & darker tone than its predecessor with the inclusion of moral ambiguity -- It tended to lots of subplots and character arcs that all got resolved, expanded upon the workings of the Force, and ended with one of the shocking twists in cinema. I don't think anybody has to be into Star Wars to see what is so great about Empire -- I do get what you're saying though -- I wouldn't want a follow-up to Blade Runner either since it's impossible to achieve the same level the first one got, merely because a sequel would have to go even further, which isn't exactly encouraging. Regardless, it's a film and as a film-nut and one who holds Empire Strikes Back in high regard, it deserves to be as great as it can be. Its a great fairy tale for a particular time and generation but I can't take it seriously, to me its at best a good representation of commercial cinema. That's fine. Commercial cinema I wouldn't call it. But then again I don't really like Tolkien all that much despite the effect his writing and lore has had fantasy overall. I acknowledge that too. Empire Strikes Back, viewed from a film-making perspective is a tightly packed achievement. Although, it's obvious we don't agree so let's end it here then.

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well. Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least. JJAbrams is an average director. But I don't consider any of the Star Wars film as particularly well directed. I'm not a fan, as it were, and I don't think that at this point in the very bloated SW universe a movie can be made that will bring back the magic for those who grew up around the originals even if you hire the best possible directors. Back in the day, when it was a fairy tale without a ton of lore hanging around its neck, there was a lot more room for creativity. Empire Strikes Back was extraordinarily well directed, and what I'd consider a marvel visually & audio wise, whether or not you think that its plot can hold up to the standards of today is arguable, I suppose. It set a standard for social aesthetics of future generations of today, which none of the other movies ever managed to reach. It followed up with a more mature & darker tone than its predecessor with the inclusion of moral ambiguity -- It tended to lots of subplots and character arcs that all got resolved, expanded upon the workings of the Force, and ended with one of the shocking twists in cinema. I don't think anybody has to be into Star Wars to see what is so great about Empire -- I do get what you're saying though -- I wouldn't want a follow-up to Blade Runner either since it's impossible to achieve the same level the first one got, merely because a sequel would have to go even further, which isn't exactly encouraging. Regardless, it's a film and as a film-nut and one who holds Empire Strikes Back in high regard, it deserves to be as great as it can be.