Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Parsely]

In the 1982 movie, it's stated at some point that the process requires "darkness".

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I've seen that movie a dozen times and I don't ever remember anyone mentioning that the conversion required darkness. What it does take is time, so the Thing ideally wants to be alone. There's never a conversion on-screen because of just that reason. It's really really slow. And everyone who comes into fluidic contact with the Thing is burnt to death. Copper gets his arms bitten off by Norris-thing and Windows gets his face messed up by Palmer-thing. Neither of them have been turned, but they've had blood-to-blood contact (and they're also maimed but that's secondary), and eventually they WOULD become Thing monsters, so they're burnt by the other characters because they're aware of this. Earlier in the film MacReady suggests everyone eats out of cans and fixes their own meals because they're afraid of being infected by eating.

I think it's fair that John Carpenter was more interested in making a movie about a monster than one about a pathogen.

[Rolan7]

Blade 1:
What exactly are purebloods?  I *guess* vampires can simply have children normally, because they talk about being "born a vampire".  And being born of a changing vampire produces a daywalker, IE blade.
It's just weird since the pureblood/turned tension is a major plot point, but we never see it spelled out that vampires can have children.
Also where the hell did they get enough blood to fill the fire suppressors for the initial rave scene haha.  Vampires in this setting must only have to eat like once a week.  Because there are like a hundred at the disco, and they're just a subgroup, and feeding is always shown as lethal/creating a vampire.  Hell maybe they only have to feed once a month!

Blade 2 spoilers I guess, but it's an action series and doesn't pretend to be much more:
So the clan family heads were all sorta-murdered in Blade 1, but now there's this nosferatu-esque guy who's in charge.  Why's he a nosferatu?  Also he looks like the reapers, which makes sense since he's their father, but wait his daughter is normal/vampire-sexy!
How did the reaper escape?
Why doesn't he have to feed like his progeny do?
The heart's encased in bone, alright, but why don't bullets still work?  Eh I guess it's strong bone.

Mainly...
HOW DID BLADE FALL IN LOVE WITH THE NOT-SERENA
She literally trained for years to murder you.  She's the daughter of the local vampire king.  You know the vampire team is planning to backstab you... later you show you REALLY planned for that.  Yet you save her life and practically cry over her.
For that matter, how did she fall in love with you

Also when that one vampire gets infected, why did he try to hide it.  This is some Aliens-level stupidity, I guess he didn't love his girlfriend as much as she loved him.

In general, why do the vampires keep sending mooks to attack Blade.  But that's nitpicking to an extreme...  Almost as much as wondering why characters always patiently wait for their opponents to pull the swords/knives out of their bodies before continuing the fight.

Why did the vampires preserve Whistler
Why doesn't Blade cure his vampire hostage at the beginning, instead he leaves the vampire alive to murder more people.

I actually liked both movies though

[LordBaal]

Saw deadpool. Is the pinacle of cinematography, in fact it very might be the pinacle of mankind achievements. Hollywood can close it's doors now... :p

My only fear is they screw the second part somehow.

[Sergius]

I read that the Baddie guy from Avatar wants to play Cable.

[itisnotlogical]

Saw deadpool. Is the pinacle of cinematography, in fact it very might be the pinacle of mankind achievements. Hollywood can close it's doors now... :p

My only fear is they screw the second part somehow.

Spoiler: Actual Deadpool spoilers (click to show/hide)

My problem with Deadpool is that it spent way too much time on his origin story and him not being Deadpool. I didn't give a damn about the lab scenes and ohh how scary and the villains are eeeevil, look they wounded him personally as well as physically, now the villains have deep and interesting origin stories. It's a parody, it's okay if Deadpool isn't the deepest or most well-thought-out character.

I wanted to see the guy in the red suit flip around and kill people and make jokes. It's like a three-hour-long Batman movie where he spends only the first and last 20 minutes being Batman, and the rest of the runtime is Bruce Wayne sitting at a desk, calmly filing his taxes.

It's annoying because the parts where he was actually Deadpool and doing Deadpool things were really good, and I really wanted to see more of them.

[Sergius]

Saw deadpool. Is the pinacle of cinematography, in fact it very might be the pinacle of mankind achievements. Hollywood can close it's doors now... :p

My only fear is they screw the second part somehow.

Spoiler: Actual Deadpool spoilers (click to show/hide)

My problem with Deadpool is that it spent way too much time on his origin story and him not being Deadpool. I didn't give a damn about the lab scenes and ohh how scary and the villains are eeeevil, look they wounded him personally as well as physically, now the villains have deep and interesting origin stories. It's a parody, it's okay if Deadpool isn't the deepest or most well-thought-out character.

I wanted to see the guy in the red suit flip around and kill people and make jokes. It's like a three-hour-long Batman movie where he spends only the first and last 20 minutes being Batman, and the rest of the runtime is Bruce Wayne sitting at a desk, calmly filing his taxes.

It's annoying because the parts where he was actually Deadpool and doing Deadpool things were really good, and I really wanted to see more of them.

I'm not going to pretend I'm a big Deadpool expert, but I saw one of them "Comixplained" videos on youtoob and it would seem there are more facets to DP than being a zany violent buffoon (some writers sometimes go the other way like black comedy with some drama stuff) and the fanbase is split somewhere around the middle, so I guess they wanted to cover that too.

[LordBaal]

They also needed to trash the "origins" movie. They did it so the back history is fully rewritten.

[itisnotlogical]

I saw "The Martian" the other day, and it really bothered me that the astronauts did not act professionally. At all. They were written more like bit parts in a third-rate action movie than trained professionals in deep space.

[Parsely]

I saw "The Martian" the other day, and it really bothered me that the astronauts did not act professionally. At all. They were written more like bit parts in a third-rate action movie than trained professionals in deep space.

The movie fails to properly capture any of the science, the hard work the author did researching to get things right (i.e. the entire point of The Martian), that the book contains.

[LordBaal]

It felt a compromise among good old dumb Hollywood crap to amuse a broader audience and a serious attempt at making a mockumentary

[Parsely]

Yes, but if the movie followed the book's example of style, then all of 10000 people will have enjoyed it.

I'm bad at box office numbers, so replace 10000 with whatever appropriately low number applies. I know at least 2 people who enjoyed the movie and consider the book to be borderline unreadable. Personally, I haven't read the book, but it seems to cater to a very specific audience. The general public is not that audience.

Absolutely not. The book is very down-to-earth. That's where the movie gets its humor from; the smart, successful astronaut speaks in plain, modern English ("I'm going to have to science the shit out of this."). The dialogue reads like something Stephen King wrote, except less vulgar.

[Sheb]

The book's writing WAS terrible. Great science, but it's fun to read despite the author's writing, not because of it.

[Parsely]

The book's writing WAS terrible. Great science, but it's fun to read despite the author's writing, not because of it.

Terrible in what sense, because though I only listened to the audio book once, I am inclined to strongly disagree with you?

My first guess is that you hated the protagonist.

[Sheb]

Not too bad, although I wish he'd stop swearing every five minutes. The characters were not develloped in the least, a lot of the jokes fell flat and generally I'm not fan of the writing style.

[Parsely]

The characters were not developed in the least.

Fair enough I guess. Everyone who isn't Watney didn't get much told about them and just serve as a means to an ultimate resolution to the story.

Jokes and swearing are subjective. I thought it was pretty funny aside from overdoing it a little with the pop culture references, not quite as cringe-inducing as Ready Player One (if any book deserves to get ripped to shreds for relying on references it is that one). Swearing is also fine because of his depressingly bleak situation.