Aughhhhhhhhhhhh
Why the memes? Why do there always have to be fucking memes?
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/42 3640
This had a chance to be funny, but the author decided that Leonidas, Chuck Norris, and 1337 speak were still way funnier than thinking of a joke. Can someone else please tell me they're sick of this shit?
At 2/7/08 02:57 PM, NegativeONE wrote: Aughhhhhhhhhhhh
Why the memes? Why do there always have to be fucking memes?
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/42 3640
This had a chance to be funny, but the author decided that Leonidas, Chuck Norris, and 1337 speak were still way funnier than thinking of a joke. Can someone else please tell me they're sick of this shit?
Stuuuuuuuupiiiiiid, sadly inflated score....
That voice is soooooo annoying, it reminds me of lemon demon................
Scientology, who gives a shit, Anonymous, who gives a shit.
At 2/7/08 02:57 PM, NegativeONE wrote: Aughhhhhhhhhhhh
Why the memes? Why do there always have to be fucking memes?
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/42 3640
This had a chance to be funny, but the author decided that Leonidas, Chuck Norris, and 1337 speak were still way funnier than thinking of a joke. Can someone else please tell me they're sick of this shit?
it true, agree 100%, i try and make joke in my flash but people don't get.
bashing skfjsdkl scientlsols
I enjoyed this because of the animation, when it was there. Was it that funny know? Do I give a shit about sicentology, no. But it was obviously by Andrew Kepple, and I love him.
At 2/7/08 02:57 PM, NegativeONE wrote: were still way funnier than thinking of a joke. Can someone else please tell me they're sick of this shit?
Yes.
At 2/7/08 03:12 PM, MRat wrote: bashing skfjsdkl scientlsols
I enjoyed this because of the animation, when it was there. Was it that funny know? Do I give a shit about sicentology, no. But it was obviously by Andrew Kepple, and I love him.
It was really AK? It did have kind of his feel to it, but how come you know? His animation seems to be improving exponentially :P He was pretty damn awesome to begin with.
At 2/7/08 02:47 AM, Evion wrote: Oh and completely off topics:
THIS IS JUST SO ****** AWESOME!
Do I get an award to listening to it the most?
I have 2 other versions of this song... one of them is done by the Dropkick Murphys :3
The other is Tears For Beer
Gone with no electricity
Hey everyone. I will be gone for 10 days starting tommorow!
I'll be gone to one of the most poor countries in Africa and won't have any electricity.
So you can miss me now! (or in a couple of hours)
Grr.
I just got reminded of something I need to get off of my chest.
Batman Begins
I watched this again quite recently, and I need to have a good rant about it otherwise I'm just going to slap something.
I got the DVD like a year ago, and prepared to watch it, all pumped up for the exciting, emotionally developed superhero action fantasy I'd been promised by legions of critics. What I got instead was mediocre, underdeveloped, and most of all - annoying. I decided to give it another chance recently in the hope that I'd been having a bad day the first time round, perhaps with inflated expectations, and that given an unbiased and open-minded view of it the second time around it would morph into a brilliant cinematic masterpiece. Contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, it hadn't.
For starters, I'm mentally comparing it with the two (exceptional) Tim Burton films. Both of these received a fair bit of criticism for being largely style-over-substance, but these criticisms overlook the fact that it is bloody good style, and what substance is present is of a similarly high quality. Both Tim Burton films work for me exceptionally well as dark superhero films - the style, acting and action are not only fantastic - they also all fit into the dark and Gothic, yet colourful, fantasy setting. I also have some admiration for the first Joel Schumacher film, which while lacking the style of Tim Burton's renditions still had a great, camp feel to it which you can see in the original series, and maintained some level of style.
The first thing I need to point out is how spectacularly the film failed to attain the levels of depth and emotional complexity we were promised. You only have to look at the main characters to see this - let's take them as a bullet pointed list:
o Nolan seems to be playing my least favourite stock character of all - the arrogant middle-class-plus kid who tries to do something brave for the sake of his own ego, then learns some valuable lessons along the way, nonetheless remaining as much of an annoying kid as he was before all supposed character development.
o Katie Holmes has without a doubt my second least favourite stock character, although her personal qualities propel her easily above Nolan in terms of annoyingness. She's the principled and apparently altruistic lawyer who doesn't let admiral moral principles stop her from being a smug bitch who doesn't know when to shut up or be subtle. This seems to be the general presentation of socialism in America, which is probably why everyone's so right-wing over there. It's amazing how a lack of modesty turns altruism into something which warrants a slap.
o Tom Wilkinson's mob boss is similarly lacking in dimensions. While a comparatively enjoyable character, he may as well have a great big arrow pointing to him with "Look! I'm a stereotypical, money-hungry mob boss with no redeeming characteristics whatsoever" pointing to him. When did giving villains psychological disorders, or some element of sympathy, stop being cool?
o Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine can all go in one category, since they're all great actors who seem totally out of place here. Neeson seems to have stepped into a time-warp and emerged in completely the wrong genre. Caine, while immense should never be an upper-class butler, ever (at best he's a gardener or farm-hand), and Freeman's only purpose seems to be to syphon attention away from other characters. This is what happens when you think of actors first and make characters to fit them.
None of these characters have any complexity which can't bee seen within five seconds of seeing them on-screen. It's amazing how a film can draw you in with great promises and completely fail to fulfil them.
o Cillian Murphy happens to actually play a decent character in the sinister psychologist and asylum owner. He's easily the best person in the film, and features a good three or four times more depth and style than the other characters, and is elegantly menacing. My only complaint about him is his abrupt and permanent exit from the film - just as he gets even more awesome with his appearance as the Scarecrow, he's on for fully eleven seconds before being tazed in the face and disappearing into the darkness. I sat through the rest of the film waiting for him to reappear, but no such luck.
Probably the worst example of blatantly one-dimensional characters comes with the Wayne family. Bruce's father is portrayed as a laughable ideal - I'm just left trying in vain to will him to show some kind of flaw - some human err to show that he is actually a person and not a soulless construct. At another point, Caine enlightens us as to the family's history - "Your great blah grandfather was part of the underground rail road - transporting freed slaves to the North". This kind of attempt to manufacture a family of perfection which would make Jesus blush may strike some reviewers as deep, psychological drama, but for me it just makes it impossible to engage with the film and it's characters. Common-sense dictates that no family with such levels of altruism would remain rich for long, and where the hell did they get their money in the first place? Extracting thorns from the feet or unicorns who gave them pots of gold out of gratitude?
The direction, script and structure of the film have their share of crippling flaws. Let's look at the script first - anything which can make Michael Caine feel lame is a definite lump of fail. Here's a sample of some amazing monologue:
Caine: To the unconcious body of what is clearly a ninja Caine has just knocked out in order to gain access to a burning building "I hope you're not a member of the fire brigade".
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Funny.
Were that not comedy gold enough, the film also has a view of satire which consists of having one character repeat a line said earlier in the film in a context which can be seen as ironic. And I use the word ironic in its most obnoxious and obvious sense. For example:
Board Dick: Firing Freeman "Didn't you get the memo?"
Some time later
Freeman: Firing Board Dick "Didn't you get the memo?"
You see the connection there? This happens probably seven times throughout the film, and this instance is the least annoying.
Let's move onto structure. It's something like half an hour into the film before Batman eventually shows. In any other situation this may be considered as (far excessive) suspense, but there are several action scenes in this time, all of which just leave you impatiently wondering when Batman's actually going to emerge.
I'm running short on characters here, so I'll be more compact. The direction isn't great - for plenty of scenes, the last fight in particular, Nolan lapses into that sub-standard action film technique of flicking between two or three action fights, as if expecting the audience to have ADD. That's just patronising.
The plot is unrealistic. A main part of it consists of a microwave emitter which can vapourise water at ranges of over a kilometer, whilst having no ill effects whatsoever on the 90% water humans standing next to it (imagine sticking a cat in a microwave). At one point, a crime lord is tied irresponsibly to a search light and left for some time. Remember that CSI where someone was fried on one of those? Basic laws of thermal radiation don't seem to apply in this universe. Of course, criticising fiction for being unrealistic is a bit pointless, but this is what happens when a film supremely annoys you. You find more faults everywhere.
The CGI world has no magic to it. There's no dark style - the city simply looks generic. Whilst Burton could be accused of covering substance with style, Nolan covers what little substance there is with annoying.
Few words left - wrapping up. Thanks for reading.
@ the job...
So, I was counting money and the total amount came out to be $1,337.00. Pretty funny.
RE: @ the job
At 2/7/08 05:00 PM, Deathcon7 wrote
So, I was counting money and the total amount came out to be $1,337.00. Pretty funny.
Haha, I once had 1,336.80 SEK on my bank account.. What wouldn't I have done for just 0.20 SEK more ;P
Also, a friend of a friend of mine have the phone number 13372.. That '2' ruins it a bit, but it's as close to having the perfect phone number you can be here ;)
Re:Batman Begins
At 2/7/08 04:46 PM, Paranoia wrote: Grr.
Few words left - wrapping up. Thanks for reading.
When I watched it I quite liked it. Im looking forward to the new one too. But youre rant has got me a bit miffed about what was so wrong with Batman Begins when I just thought it was an alrite film. I may have to go watch it again and see...
This is no great thorn in my side like you just posted about, but do you lot like Tim Burton's films? I've not seen them all (not seen Willy Wonker, Sweeney Todd, Nightmare before Crimbo(since I was scared and little)) but have seen the Batmans, Edward Scissorbloke and er some more I believe (Big Fish, is that by him?). I dont really like his stuff. People are always going on about him as this legend but I just sort of half-heartedly dont care for it, it being Edward Scrissorhands for example.
I think that people like how weird it is and call weird 'good/cool/amazing'. Maybe because goth girls can attatch themselves to the black-cute stuff is why it's so loved. I found with Scissorhands that after 'wow that's weird, scissor for hands' had worn off it was just a bit boring or whatever.
Moo.
PS - anyone know a good site for watching movies on? Like TV links n all that. I fancy watching Batman Begins now.
Movies
Movies like Batman Begins just go to show how much work is put into advertising the movie.
Sometimes movies can have ads that make them look great and even trick people into thinking they're good, but in reality the parts in the ad is are good as the movie ever got.
I really liked batman begins. The approach of Nolan to superhero movies is more sober and realistic, something which i think works very well for particularly batman.
By the way i found it funny when i found out that Tim Burton makes flash movies too. Check m out here http://www.atomfilms.com/film/stainboy1_
staregirl.jsp
At 2/7/08 05:26 PM, Mogly wrote: PS - anyone know a good site for watching movies on? Like TV links n all that. I fancy watching Batman Begins now.
check movie6.net
Madame Tutli-Putli
Check out this absolutely amazing short film Madame Tutli-putli. It's been nominated for an Academy Award and I really hope it is. It's so well done.
At 2/7/08 04:46 PM, Paranoia wrote: Grr.
Bunch of stuff that should go in a blog
You're right that the best Batman, until the last, was Tim Burton's.
The rest of your rant seemed pretty nit-picky to me, and the fact that you wanted more "camp" in your batman raises my eyebrow.
Yes, it's a comic book, but, in my mind, batman is the one comic book character who's supposed to have an element of realism to him (since he has no "super" powers). He's also one whose past is essential to his story, so delving into that back-story and developing why he's able to do what he does makes perfect sense to me.
Much of what went right with the 1st Spider-Man movie was the "risk" of not showing Spidey in his full costume until a long way into the movie, and using that time to develop the "fuel" underlying his choice to become a superhero.
That's what resonated with me about the latest Batman, it made me think, "Hey, if I were rich, and had balls enough to travel the world learning to fight and understanding criminal minds, then came back and used my money to build an awesome suit using advanced technology, it might actually be possible for the grand idea of a real-life super hero to be possible."
Ok, the water-to-vapor stuff was really not well thought out, but as a device to drive the plot I was happy to look past it.
At 2/7/08 02:45 PM, patu1 wrote:At 2/7/08 02:34 PM, AloneInTheDark wrote: StuffWell i agree.
What i think is that WOW and games like that should have better graphic design.
Most MMOs go for less intense graphics to allow for more things to be happening at once, processing other PCs, items and draw distance. There is way more going on in MMOs than most games.
A good example is Bioshock VS. Halo3. The more things onscreen at one time, the less intense the graphics need to be in order for the game to maintain good speed.
There is just sooooo much shit going on in MMOs both in the foreground and with network overhead, that better graphics could easily make the game more UN-playable.
A good example is Bioshock VS. Halo3. The more things onscreen at one time, the less intense the graphics need to be in order for the game to maintain good speed.
NOTE: I know neither Bio or Halo are MMOs, was just using those two, because you can make a good distinction between graphical firepower VS. amount of things happening.
Johnny = JohnnyKrysys? Haven't you been away for months?
i was watching those speed painting videos on youtube and i wanted to try it. so i just started painting pics of my friends. this is my 2nd attempt.
At 2/7/08 10:34 AM, Senti wrote: Also...food poisoning seems to have got the better of Luis...where's he been the last couple days?
"working"
Well, as much as you can on a tropical desert island surrounded by hot island poontang.
At 2/7/08 10:28 PM, As-Soul wrote: i was watching those speed painting videos on youtube and i wanted to try it. so i just started painting pics of my friends. this is my 2nd attempt.
Looks good :D
At 2/7/08 11:27 PM, atomic-noodle wrote:At 2/7/08 10:28 PM, As-Soul wrote: i was watching those speed painting videos on youtube and i wanted to try it. so i just started painting pics of my friends. this is my 2nd attempt.Looks good :D
hey noodle, i got a question, what colleges have you gone to, or are going to.?
hey noodle, i got a question, what colleges have you gone to, or are going to.?
Looks good :D
crazy little korean sweatshop kid, hes only 15.
At 2/7/08 10:28 PM, As-Soul wrote: i was watching those speed painting videos on youtube and i wanted to try it. so i just started painting pics of my friends. this is my 2nd attempt.
Haha, I see a little bit of Natalie Dee influence poking out there.
Madness 8
I just can't work out if that Shadow guy is meant to be Krinkels or just some random villain :P It was awesome nonetheless - I'm glad his style keeps evolving and morphing instead of just churning out a series in exactly the same style as it would be so easy to do.
madness 8
they are getting longer and more pointless.
I didn't see it all cause my brother put the cat in my room (jerk).
I hope that he won't do more then 10 and he would think off some awesome concept for the next ones.
otherwise i will starting blaming is stuff with all my might which is pretty low seeing that i am level 9 and don't have many blam protect points..
At 2/7/08 10:17 PM, NegativeONE wrote: Johnny = JohnnyKrysys? Haven't you been away for months?
o.O I got rid of the "Krysys" in my forum name well over a year ago because Luis couldn't spell it.
Yeah, I've been mostly away from Newground, wrapping up college, moving into a new apartment with a new girl... my newgrounds time was cut WAY short. Now, we're cozy together, I just finished up Calculus II, Torque game Engine modification and Artificial Intelligence (which was a mother fucker of a class) so I have some more NG time.
Yay!
