Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Fett
ParticipantWelcome back, SteamPunk!
Fett
ParticipantActually Fett thanks for mentioning the movie 300 its one of my favorites. The movie writen buy Frank Miller is a totally ficticious account of the real event! Except for the most important facts! The spartant went, fought and died at thermopylae! Miller took artistic lisence in all other aspects but he honoured the historical fundementals!
So did Tarantino: the Nazis went to war, conquered most of Europe, hunted Jews, and lost.
There's your historical fundamentals, all honoured.
But I ask again: why should he honour historical fundamentals? The movie isn't meant to be a serious portrayal of World War II nor a historical drama. When the ending happened, I laughed because it made SENSE. In this movie, with these characters, these events would happen. And it's funny precisely because it's NOT what really happened. The idea that it would make more sense for the events to happen as historically accurate is just not sensible. Imagine a 'historically' accurate ending and tell me it would be as good. It wouldn't. Because if the Basterds were real, things wouldn't continue as history intended. If it was historically accurate, it would feel like a LIE.
Fett
ParticipantI think I am just forever cursed to walk the Earth alone.
Kinda like Highlander.
Except without the kick-ass soundtrack.
Fett
ParticipantI'm not a Tarantino fan, but I loved this film enough to see it twice.
Complaining that INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS isn't historically accurate is like complaining 300 isn't historically accurate. Or that WATCHMEN doesn't portray 1985 correctly. Or that there was no Dr Evil in 1960-blah and therefore AUSTIN POWERS is somehow 'wrong'.
Utter nonsense.
At no point in BASTERDS does it even pretend that it's a war documentary, nor a World War II drama showcasing World War II as it was. From the start to the very end, the movie is quite clearly a glorified romanticism of the love of World War II stories.
The ending makes perfect sense for the movie as written.
Fett
ParticipantThis is bullshit.
The only reason I GO to the gym is to ogle women, Lord knows that weightlifting thing does fuck all.
What REALLY aggravates me is all these women complaining about pervs and yet… I have yet to see a hot woman at my gym. It's just fat white men, or, if I'm 'lucky', a skinny yet overweight woman (I don't know how they do that) lifting pink weights.
It's terrible. In fact, it gets so bad, I have nothing to do except work out.
Stupid gym.
September 1, 2009 at 4:25 am in reply to: Does Disney’s purchase of Marvel make a She Hulk Movie more/less likely? #86490Fett
ParticipantAll the worrying is nonsense.
DC has been owned by AOL Time Warner without incident. All this means is that it's easier for Marvel to distribute things, and it wasn't like they were 'holding back' their brands. Marvel is happily fast-tracking every property it has, even if it's rubbish, aware they can just reboot it five years later with a different cast and still make a mint. If they want to do a She-Hulk movie, being acquired by Disney won't matter.
Disney owns lots of companies. And if you're worried about Disney 'kiddifying' Marvel or turning Marvel comics into nothing but movie merchandise… Wolverine no longer smokes cigars, Spider-Man had his marriage annulled by Satan because a divorce would be immoral, and when Avi Arad had Bill Jemas fired, it not only drastically affected Marvel's creative output, but it was done to make sure the comics lined up more with the movies.
Disney's acquisition just makes Marvel more secure, and means maybe we'll see Marvel put out Mickey Mouse and Incredibles comics and what not.
It's fine.
Fett
ParticipantWelcome, Growingup!
(I ain't got no suggestions, just thought I'd be all welcome-y!)
Fett
ParticipantNo idea.
Fett
ParticipantAnimation + canned laughter = supremely irritating failure. What were they thinking.
That they wanted to make sure something laughed.
Fett
ParticipantThis site has a lot of lurkers.
-
AuthorPosts