HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Entertainment
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Entertainment Discuss movies, tv shows, music, arts, literature, fashion, and upcoming events, concerts, etc.

Fast & Furious 6

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-14-2013, 09:39 PM
  #51
Shellz
Registered User
 
Shellz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: California
Posts: 17,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Viper View Post
already posted that
Actually you didn't. Video isn't working.

Shellz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 04:15 PM
  #52
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,927
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swedish Puck Mafia View Post
I actually liked that movie. It was better than 2 or 4, in my opinion.

It would make more sense as a standalone movie (replace Han with a non-recurring character), with just the cameo from Diesel at the end.
It wasn't bad, but it's already out there. They can't remake that part of the story, and they're tied to tying 3 to one of these sequels. I think it might be after this one so they can bring in Lucas Black, but it's not like he's become a bankable actor. Most of these others haven't either, but still.


I've discussed and only half-joked that they should keep doing until they can make Brian/Mia's kid the central character of the reboot a la Degrassi in like 10 years

Also, just went back and looked, I might be looking too hard at this, but they show Han dying in 3 almost the same way they showed Letty "dying" in 4. You see him in the car, and you see the explosion, but you don't see him in the explosion.


Last edited by GKJ: 02-15-2013 at 04:25 PM.
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 07:32 PM
  #53
Everlong
-
 
Everlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,288
vCash: 500
I remember when these movies were actually about street racing.

Everlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2013, 07:41 PM
  #54
elias026
Registered User
 
elias026's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
It wasn't bad, but it's already out there. They can't remake that part of the story, and they're tied to tying 3 to one of these sequels. I think it might be after this one so they can bring in Lucas Black, but it's not like he's become a bankable actor. Most of these others haven't either, but still.


I've discussed and only half-joked that they should keep doing until they can make Brian/Mia's kid the central character of the reboot a la Degrassi in like 10 years

Also, just went back and looked, I might be looking too hard at this, but they show Han dying in 3 almost the same way they showed Letty "dying" in 4. You see him in the car, and you see the explosion, but you don't see him in the explosion.
they didnt show Letty dying, they showed what Dom was thinking/predicting how she died

elias026 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 09:28 AM
  #55
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,927
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by elias026 View Post
they didnt show Letty dying, they showed what Dom was thinking/predicting how she died
Didn't they show her car blowing up and someone shooting a gun though, or something? The exact events are escaping me.


It's a far-fetched prospect, but they could write their way around it if they wanted to do it.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2013, 09:55 AM
  #56
elias026
Registered User
 
elias026's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Didn't they show her car blowing up and someone shooting a gun though, or something? The exact events are escaping me.


It's a far-fetched prospect, but they could write their way around it if they wanted to do it.
ya your right they did show that but it was when Dom was at the scene thinking about how it all happen

elias026 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2013, 06:39 PM
  #57
Aerolanche
Registered User
 
Aerolanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,899
vCash: 500
I don't get the ********. If you don't like it, why bother coming in here to complain? The Fast franchise is very humorous and pretty entertaining. They're not trying to reproduce the Bourne trilogy.

__________________

http://www.aspechockey.com
Avalanche SPECulation, prospects and news.
Aerolanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2013, 07:02 PM
  #58
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerolanche View Post
I don't get the ********. If you don't like it, why bother coming in here to complain? The Fast franchise is very humorous and pretty entertaining. They're not trying to reproduce the Bourne trilogy.
I don't see how posting in a thread to say you don't like something is any different than posting in a thread to say you like something. The second part of your post is totally reductive and false. People who don't like it don't like it for what it is. What does that have to do with the Bourne trilogy?

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2013, 09:40 PM
  #59
Aerolanche
Registered User
 
Aerolanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
I don't see how posting in a thread to say you don't like something is any different than posting in a thread to say you like something. The second part of your post is totally reductive and false. People who don't like it don't like it for what it is. What does that have to do with the Bourne trilogy?
I came to the thread because I'm excited about the series. Why would you click the thread title if you weren't excited about seeing the movie?

Reductive? Do you even know what that means? Of course it was reductive. You expect me to break down all six movies? Simply put, the movies make up a humorous, entertaining series. Nothing more. I guess I can understand how you failed to see that the next sentence was referencing that the Fast series isn't trying to be serious, as the Bourne films are.

Wow. Let me know if you need further explanation.

Aerolanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2013, 09:47 PM
  #60
kevinsane
Lundqvist clone.
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dawson Creek, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlong View Post
I remember when these movies were actually about street racing.
Which is dangerous and douchey hobby for brooding and selfish buttwipes with too much money and not enough brains.
Glad they went in another direction.

kevinsane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2013, 10:09 PM
  #61
Moskau
Registered User
 
Moskau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western New York
Posts: 9,797
vCash: 100
I like a well written movie with great directing and acting as much as the next guy but people really need to take a step back and realize not every movie needs to be Oscar worthy. Some movies can just be entertaining and nothing else. Some of you should try it sometime.

Moskau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2013, 11:25 PM
  #62
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerolanche View Post
I came to the thread because I'm excited about the series. Why would you click the thread title if you weren't excited about seeing the movie?

Reductive? Do you even know what that means? Of course it was reductive. You expect me to break down all six movies? Simply put, the movies make up a humorous, entertaining series. Nothing more. I guess I can understand how you failed to see that the next sentence was referencing that the Fast series isn't trying to be serious, as the Bourne films are.

Wow. Let me know if you need further explanation.
It's false and oversimplified because you're going "this is an entertaining, fun movie-- this guy dislikes it, therefore, he must expect it to be something besides an entertaining, fun movie." The fact is, your impression of it does not reflect everyone else's. People don't have fun with things and then turn their back on it and claim that they didn't enjoy it against their will (for some stupid reason like wanting it to be another type of movie). Therefore, the reference to the Bourne series is completely irrelevant and silly. You're just setting up strawman arguments and knocking them over to declare people's opinions invalid. It's reductive because you're treating people like simpletons who can't understand the obvious thing that the movie is trying to be, and writing off the reason for it as something that only a moron would be guilty of. Everyone gets what the series is all about, nobody expects it to be something else-- but not everyone is going to react positively to what that is.

I usually go into a thread because I have an opinion or impression of something and feel like sharing it-- I don't think something being positive is a better reason to do it, personally. Wanting to put something out there because you're annoyed by it is more or less the same emotion as wanting to put something out there because you're excited about it. When I have something negative to say, the intention is never to want to get a rise out of people or attack their preferences.

And to clarify, I don't have any issues with the Fast and the Furious series. I just dislike the mentality you and others have about stuff like this, and how quick you are to dismiss anyone who says something bad about it. Why does it always have to be *eyeroll* "Here comes a hater thinking something stupid for a stupid, moronic reason again" instead of just "Oh, this guy doesn't like the series"?

Reductive: Tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form, esp. one viewed as crude.

I think I used the word just fine.


Last edited by Shareefruck: 02-17-2013 at 11:50 PM.
Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2013, 11:52 PM
  #63
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moskau View Post
I like a well written movie with great directing and acting as much as the next guy but people really need to take a step back and realize not every movie needs to be Oscar worthy. Some movies can just be entertaining and nothing else. Some of you should try it sometime.
Nobody is saying this. It's such a crazy assumption to make!

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 12:34 AM
  #64
Aerolanche
Registered User
 
Aerolanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
It's false and oversimplified because you're going "this is an entertaining, fun movie-- this guy dislikes it, therefore, he must expect it to be something besides an entertaining, fun movie." The fact is, your impression of it does not reflect everyone else's. People don't have fun with things and then turn their back on it and claim that they didn't enjoy it against their will (for some stupid reason like wanting it to be another type of movie). Therefore, the reference to the Bourne series is completely irrelevant and silly. You're just setting up strawman arguments and knocking them over to declare people's opinions invalid. It's reductive because you're treating people like simpletons who can't understand the obvious thing that the movie is trying to be, and writing off the reason for it as something that only a moron would be guilty of. Everyone gets what the series is all about, nobody expects it to be something else-- but not everyone is going to react positively to what that is.

I usually go into a thread because I have an opinion or impression of something and feel like sharing it-- I don't think something being positive is a better reason to do it, personally. Wanting to put something out there because you're annoyed by it is more or less the same emotion as wanting to put something out there because you're excited about it. When I have something negative to say, the intention is never to want to get a rise out of people or attack their preferences.

And to clarify, I don't have any issues with the Fast and the Furious series. I just dislike the mentality you and others have about stuff like this, and how quick you are to dismiss anyone who says something bad about it. Why does it always have to be *eyeroll* "Here comes a hater thinking something stupid for a stupid, moronic reason again" instead of just "Oh, this guy doesn't like the series"?

Reductive: Tending to present a subject or problem in a simplified form, esp. one viewed as crude.

I think I used the word just fine.
Really? Is it that important to you to attempt to prove your argument? Take a second and just think about what I actually said. It was only a few sentences. To recap, if you don't like the series, why bother wasting your time reading, much less replying to, a thread about it? Maybe these same responses are showing up in the Hansel and Gretel thread. I have no idea, because I have no interest in that movie and thus can't be bothered to look at it. Again, my question is, is it really worth the time of the person to click on something they have no interest in and compose something to take away from what everyone else is excited about? Why bother?

It was quite clear to me that you didn't say there was anything wrong with the series. To clarify, my original thread response had nothing to do with you. I'm not quite sure you understood my three sentences. You can read in between the lines and come up with whatever interpretation of my response you like. I understand you don't like the mentality that you mentioned. Not once did I imply that if you don't like the movies, then it's automatically because you're expecting it to be something it's not. Of course, sometimes this actually does apply. Sometimes, it doesn't. Who cares? Is it impossible to express two separate thoughts in the same paragraph?

Aerolanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 12:48 AM
  #65
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerolanche View Post
Really? Is it that important to you to attempt to prove your argument? Take a second and just think about what I actually said. It was only a few sentences. To recap, if you don't like the series, why bother wasting your time reading, much less replying to, a thread about it? Maybe these same responses are showing up in the Hansel and Gretel thread. I have no idea, because I have no interest in that movie and thus can't be bothered to look at it. Again, my question is, is it really worth the time of the person to click on something they have no interest in and compose something to take away from what everyone else is excited about? Why bother?

It was quite clear to me that you didn't say there was anything wrong with the series. To clarify, my original thread response had nothing to do with you. I'm not quite sure you understood my three sentences. You can read in between the lines and come up with whatever interpretation of my response you like. I understand you don't like the mentality that you mentioned.
I know you weren't directing the original comment at me. I elaborated my point because I feel many people have the mentality you do and it seems unjust to me. Someone says something negative and fans go "Here we go, some butt-hurt hater picking apart the movie for the wrong reasons-- It's not going for an Oscar!" like that's fair or meaningful. They just don't like it and want to tell people that they don't like it-- It's an innocent thing, and like you said, who cares? Why get ******** over a movie you don't like?-- why get butt-hurt over a negative comment about a movie you do like?

Besides, am I really not supposed to explain myself further if you trivialize my original comment with condescending stuff like "Do you even know what that means? Wow, let me know if you need further explanation"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerolanche View Post
Not once did I imply that if you don't like the movies, then it's automatically because you're expecting it to be something it's not. Of course, sometimes this actually does apply. Sometimes, it doesn't. Who cares? Is it impossible to express two separate thoughts in the same paragraph?
It would only make sense for you to say "They're not trying to reproduce the Bourne trilogy" if you thought/implied that the dissenters in the thread were expecting the wrong thing out of it. There's really no reason to think that people are that stupid, but by stating that, you're baselessly accusing them of it. Do you really think it's unfair of me to question that?


Last edited by Shareefruck: 02-18-2013 at 01:26 AM.
Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 01:34 AM
  #66
Aerolanche
Registered User
 
Aerolanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,899
vCash: 500
First of all, you have failed to answer the main point, i.e. the topic sentence, as to why it is worth someone's time to read and reply to something they have no interest in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
I know you weren't directing the original comment at me. I elaborated my point because I feel too many people have the mentality you do and it seems unjust to me. Someone says something negative and everyone who's a fan goes "Here we go, some butt-hurt hater picking apart the movie for the wrong reasons-- It's not going for an Oscar!" like that's fair or meaningful. They just don't like it and want to tell people that they don't like it-- It's an innocent thing, and like you said, who cares? Why get butt-hurt over other people's butt-hurt? (Ugh, did I really just say that?)
For one thing, the internet is a bad place to look for justice. Seriously though, I understand your point, but don't you think you're making the same generalizations yourself? You're stating that if someone has a negative opinion, 'everyone who's a fan' has a default unjust response? Disregarding the fact that I never made this generalization myself, why is it just for you to make that generalization but it isn't okay for the fan to make the generalization you previously mentioned?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
Besides, am I really not supposed to explain myself further if you trivialize my original comment with condescending stuff like "Do you even know what that means? Wow, let me know if you need further explanation"?
I would think that saying "They're not trying to reproduce the Bourne trilogy" is in response to people you think are expecting the wrong thing out of it. And there's really no reason to think that people are that stupid.
You're one to talk about condescending. Your first response in this thread, i.e. post #11 in case you forgot which argument it was, had absolutely nothing to do with the movie. You questioned someone's choice of wording instead. I don't really care if he used the right word or not, his point was clear, yet you're the type to point that out. Why? What do you get out of this?

You talk about trivializing comments, yet again, you're doing the same thing yourself. In chronological order, I made a comment completely unrelated to you, then you felt the need to call my response 'reductive and false'.

Aerolanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 01:53 AM
  #67
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerolanche View Post
First of all, you have failed to answer the main point, i.e. the topic sentence, as to why it is worth someone's time to read and reply to something they have no interest in.

Because the treatment of dissenting posters seemed unfair to me and it interests me to comment on the issues I have about that (because it bothers me). I mentioned that in my last post.

For one thing, the internet is a bad place to look for justice. Seriously though, I understand your point, but don't you think you're making the same generalizations yourself? You're stating that if someone has a negative opinion, 'everyone who's a fan' has a default unjust response? Disregarding the fact that I never made this generalization myself, why is it just for you to make that generalization but it isn't okay for the fan to make the generalization you previously mentioned?

No, I'm not making that generalization at all-- I'm strictly directing my comments at responses of the "Stop expecting an Oscar-movie/the Bourne trilogy-- Why don't you understand that it's just for fun!" variety for being unjust strawman accusations. They're direct responses to statements made-- What is being generalized?

You're one to talk about condescending. Your first response in this thread, i.e. post #11 in case you forgot which argument it was, had absolutely nothing to do with the movie. You questioned someone's choice of wording instead. I don't really care if he used the right word or not, his point was clear, yet you're the type to point that out. Why? What do you get out of this?

How is it condescending to point out that the insult someone made doesn't make sense? Believing that these aren't good movies, however disagreeable, isn't an "ignorant" stance in any way. I don't know why you would read that as "this guy's just trying to be an arrogant d-bag" rather than just "this guy thinks that guy's being unfair to the person he's insulting."-- it's not petty to pick at that if that's the whole basis of his insult.

You talk about trivializing comments, yet again, you're doing the same thing yourself. In chronological order, I made a comment completely unrelated to you, then you felt the need to call my response 'reductive and false'.

But I explained what was reductive and false about them. It only makes sense to tell someone they're trivializing something when they're doing it unfairly. You're trivializing dissenting opinions by wrongfully assuming that people have them for poor, moronic reasons when there's no reason to believe that's the case. How is that what I'm doing?

Why is it relevant if the comments were or weren't directed at me? I can't comment on them being fair or unfair because of that?
Too lazy to quote each piece. I'll admit to focusing on the validity/fairness of posts rather than the topic itself, but I don't think I'm saying anything else that's unfair, condescending, or arrogant.

But even then, if someone says something on-topic that's unfair, is telling them that that's unfair considered going off-topic?-- Doesn't seem quite right.


Last edited by Shareefruck: 02-18-2013 at 02:28 AM.
Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 02:06 AM
  #68
Aerolanche
Registered User
 
Aerolanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
No, I'm not making that generalization at all-- I'm strictly directing my comments at responses of the "Stop expecting an Oscar-movie/the Bourne trilogy-- Why don't you understand that it's just for fun!" variety are unjust strawman accusations.
Okay, I thought you were trying to imply that all responses were the unjust Bourne response. In the case that someone who was only expecting cheap entertainment doesn't like the Fast movies yet is accused of the Bourne analogy, you're correct. Congratulations. Nobody was ever disputing that. However, it is impossible to make the claim that zero people are expecting a serious movie, especially after the (in my opinion) bad attempt at a more serious movie in #4.

Quote:
Why is pointing out how someone threw an insult that didn't make sense considered condescension? Claiming that they aren't good movies isn't an ignorant stance in any way.
Again, you're missing my point. I understand you disagree with that particular guy, but why do you feel the need to point out his choice of word? Clearly, you understood what he meant.

Quote:
But I explained what was reductive and false about them. It only makes sense to tell someone they're trivializing something when they're doing it unfairly.
Yes, you did explain what was reductive, and it was clear to me that you misinterpreted what I wrote. It happens. But this doesn't change the fact that you took my original response directed at nobody in particular and trivialized it.

Aerolanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 02:38 AM
  #69
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerolanche View Post
Okay, I thought you were trying to imply that all responses were the unjust Bourne response. In the case that someone who was only expecting cheap entertainment doesn't like the Fast movies yet is accused of the Bourne analogy, you're correct. Congratulations. Nobody was ever disputing that. However, it is impossible to make the claim that zero people are expecting a serious movie, especially after the (in my opinion) bad attempt at a more serious movie in #4.

My point is, you shouldn't make that assumption about the posters in question unless you have reason to believe that's the case, which you don't. Therefore, you're indirectly accusing them of something unfairly. It doesn't matter if you could have accidentally hit the nail on the head with your baseless accusation or that in some cases, it could be true.

Again, you're missing my point. I understand you disagree with that particular guy, but why do you feel the need to point out his choice of word? Clearly, you understood what he meant.

Because again, he was accusing someone of something that they aren't guilty of. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agreed with him. From my perspective, it seemed like he just didn't like the comment so he picked a word to dismiss it as stupid. That's why I felt the need to point it out. What's condescending?

Yes, you did explain what was reductive, and it was clear to me that you misinterpreted what I wrote. It happens. But this doesn't change the fact that you took my original response directed at nobody in particular and trivialized it.

Are you seriously responding to "You're trivializing his comments by _____" with "Oh yeah, well you're trivializing me by telling me that I'm trivializing his comments!"?

Again, how is it trivializing something to go "Look, you said this thing, and I think that's wrong and oversimplified" whether it's misinterpreted or not? Criticizing something is not the same thing as trivializing it. You took a negative impression and put entirely your own spin on it that implied it was a silly impression to have-- that's trivializing.
.... If you want to continue, I suggest we do this over PMs instead. I think I've made my points clear by now.


Last edited by Shareefruck: 02-18-2013 at 03:10 AM.
Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 02:49 AM
  #70
Aerolanche
Registered User
 
Aerolanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
....
There were no people in question. It was directed at nobody in particular. Either way, you can't claim that 100% of people that disliked any of the movies were only expecting cheap entertainment. By your own logic, you don't have any reason to believe this.

You don't get it. Why bother nitpicking the words of other people?

Your reply to me was nothing like what you just "quoted". Your response was much more smug and clearly designed for a response, which you got. Again, why bother? I wasn't talking to you, and nobody else seemed to think I was "unjustly implying people were stupid".

Aerolanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 03:04 AM
  #71
Aerolanche
Registered User
 
Aerolanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,899
vCash: 500
I don't have time to dig through this mess of an 'argument' you have. It is apparent to me you're editing your posts well after I respond to them. I'm no longer playing this game with you, don't bother replying again. You have no intentions of coming to a resolution, you're only trying to prove from three sentences that I'm somehow accusing the world of idiocy, where in fact the only person doing accusing around here is you. You have logic that applies to some people but apparently does not apply to you. You consistently miss the point and insist on nitpicking things out of context, and you've done it to other people as well. Again, don't bother replying, because you'll never get a response.

Aerolanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 03:21 AM
  #72
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerolanche View Post
There were no people in question. It was directed at nobody in particular. Either way, you can't claim that 100% of people that disliked any of the movies were only expecting cheap entertainment. By your own logic, you don't have any reason to believe this.

I did not make the claim involving 100% of the people because it doesn't matter if it's possible that someone might-- By complaining that people should not to expect a serious movie, you're implying that they wrongfully did.

You don't get it. Why bother nitpicking the words of other people?

I just told you why.

Your reply to me was nothing like what you just "quoted". Your response was much more smug and clearly designed for a response, which you got. Again, why bother? I wasn't talking to you, and nobody else seemed to think I was "unjustly implying people were stupid".

The words you picked out as examples of me trivializing you were "reductive" and "false", which is the same thing as "oversimplified and wrong".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerolanche View Post
I don't have time to dig through this mess of an 'argument' you have. It is apparent to me you're editing your posts well after I respond to them. I'm no longer playing this game with you, don't bother replying again. You have no intentions of coming to a resolution, you're only trying to prove from three sentences that I'm somehow accusing the world of idiocy, where in fact the only person doing accusing around here is you. You have logic that applies to some people but apparently does not apply to you. You consistently miss the point and insist on nitpicking things out of context, and you've done it to other people as well. Again, don't bother replying, because you'll never get a response.
I'm trying to explain my thoughts and reasons as best I can. All I've heard from you is how "I keep missing the point"/misinterpreting you, how I'm dodging questions that I already answered, claiming that I'm being a hypocrite for reasons that seem completely unrelated to the adjectives, and now all these accusations about my apparently sinister and trollish intentions.

But I'm fine with leaving it alone and ending it here.


Last edited by Shareefruck: 02-18-2013 at 03:40 AM.
Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 04:15 PM
  #73
InUtero
Oilers!
 
InUtero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Edmonton AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,852
vCash: 50
I actually like every movie in the series

InUtero is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2013, 06:06 PM
  #74
BonMorrison
Sexy Back
 
BonMorrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlong View Post
I remember when these movies were actually about street racing.
And then they went into the heist direction and the entire franchise got not only revived but critically well-recieved.

BonMorrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 03:26 PM
  #75
Shameus
Moderator
 
Shameus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Middle of a Migraine
Country: Ireland
Posts: 5,675
vCash: 500
Vin Diesel did an interview in Entertainment Weekly talking about the Fast and Furious franchise. He discussed that he can see there being a 7, 8, & 9. If this were just an actor talking I'd shrug it off but he's produced 4, 5, & 6 soooooooooo........

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/05/1...-fast-riddick/

Shameus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.