Here's a clue: not everyone believes in the same regurgitated cliche' of 'truth and justice' as you do! Stop trying to make a point and get to the action scenes, already!
Like, for example, Narnia. I was watching the Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspien the other day because it looked a lot less like kids being annoying than the first. (And I was right, this one had less of kids being annoying and more of people standing around staring for at least a combined forty minutes of the movie)
Instead of them going into Narnia, living for eighty years, then going back and becoming kids, then going back into Narnia and living another eighty years, and doing that same thing over and over in order to be immortal, they go just long enough to 'learn all that they can [from Narnia]' and then they have to stay in the real world.
Belay that malarkey! Why do they have to learn some kind of lesson in fantasy-land that most people learn in the real world? Why do they have to return to earth? What is the point of that?
If these kids had any sense, which they don't, they would be immortal like I would, only I wouldn't, because people suck and I don't want to be here any longer than I have to without killing myself.
The reason they put this 'lesson' in there is because the producers realized the kids were really just too stupid to stay in Narnia, so they made up some nonsense about how they really only stayed long enough to gain knowledge in an obsolete, unnecessary manner in order to make some kind of sense and to appeal to mothers who lap that kind of stuff up and think it's 'whole-hearted' goodness for their children, not realizing that the kids don't care because they're only there for the action sequences.
And was it just me, or did that movie have the worst camera work ever?
Take, for example, the part where the camera panned to the sky and did a time-lapse to nightfall. At this point, the obvious thing to do would be to pan the camera down to reveal the children and their fire, (or it could have been the opposite and time-lapsed to morning, same difference) but instead, it just shifted from one view to the other instantaneously, making everyone lose the mood and possibly wake up from the nap they took while waiting for the characters to stop standing there with their mouths agape.
Then, the poorly-done scene where that one soldier shot the arrow and it did the 'follow-the-projectile' camera move, only it did it in the most anticlimactic way conceivable, as if the people making the movie just did not care that much-- or wanted to annoy the ever-living out of me. . . which they did.
And then we have conflict which is never resolved, like the whole argument between the prince and the High King-- Pete I think his name is. . . what a lame name for a high king. If I were a king, my name would be Asimoth Leon Grand, with unnecessary accent marks everywhere, so it would look like, As'imoth' Le'on Grand', and would be pronounced 'Jake Terrymore'.
Man, my subjects would love me just because of my name, never mind the monarchy dictatorship.
So like I was saying, we need to stop putting these unneeded, heartfelt tidbits of knowledge and wisdom having to do with abstract concepts such as love and friendship, and instead start making movies that have a REAL point.
Or, if you have to have two apposing viewpoints, why always make the obvious choice the right one?
Consider the end of the Daredevil movie-- the man has already killed two people, one of them in the first ten minutes of the movie-- in cold blood. . . and then tells the world about it.
Then, he gets to the crime-lord himself, the kingpin, fights him in an epic ending duel. The final move consists of the Daredevil sliding underneath the kingpin, between his legs, kicking the front of his knees making him double-jointed but non-the-better for all it does him, and prepares to unleash the final blow which would no doubt have been something awesome such as bludgeoning him over the head with his cane and then tossing him out of the window.
Suddenly, the writers decide that the movie was going too well and the Daredevil has a spontaneous lapse in judgment, gets an over-developed conscious and an excessive sense of compassion and pity, so instead of killing him he listens to the kingpin declare that he will rip out the Daredevil's intestines and strangle anyone close to him with them, then cut off his head and eat it raw, to which the Daredevil responds, "I know."
Wait-- what! "I know"? No! You don't know, apparently, because if you did you would have thrown him out the window!
That is stupid! He could have gotten rid of a great evil, but because he is supposedly 'different' than the bad guys, (that difference being the inability to kill, because, obviously, killing, regardless of what the bad guy has done, is simply a 'bad guy' thing to do) he will probably be mourning over the loss of his dear lawyer associate in the sequel, who has been impaled with a large but finite quantity of sharp and not-usually-deadly objects.
That is what compassion, when staring at the deathly glare of Satan, will get you; more dead colleagues.
Down with compassionate, media-crafted lessons! Down with all of these accursed CHILDREN in our movies!
What on earth!
The next movie coming out where these people have to escape from a city-- why with kids? Why! That movie could be done just as well with all adults!
As a matter of fact, the movie could do with JUST Billy Murray! No kids, no cast to figure out what is supposed to be happening, just Billy Murray being funny and unwittingly stumbling upon clues in a comedic fashion.
That would work-- honestly, what is with all of these movies coming out with kids in 'em? Nims Island, Chronicles of Narnia, that one with the kid in it-- who. . . did some stuff and got strength and at the end had a twin brother.
People have some kind of obsession with kids getting powers or discovering some kind of wonderful destiny.
My brother bought these books about teenagers who become vampires or some such rubbish. Anyone who speaks like this: "Becoming a vampire the first day of school is, like, SOOOO totally the worst," deserves to be shot, not gifted with the powers of a vampire and then left to sit around crying about being unable to go outside in the sunlight.
"Boo hoo, woe is me, I can't go out in the sunlight! Wah wah!"
Then how about we just stake you through the heart and get it over with.
I've figured it out: Hollywood has decided, in its infinite wisdom in the art of making our lives miserable, that it is going to wear down America by making so many movies that have kids for NO REASON AT ALL that everyone will get high blood pressure and be unable to defend themselves when the time comes for the takeover because they'll be too busy counting to a hundred.
Well, not me.
In my book, all of the characters are going to be thirty or older and its going to be nothing but witty dialogue and snappy repartee. That way if it is ever made into a movie, at least the dialogue wont be awful.
Here, I've made a sample:
Quote:
I was appalled, at first, "What! You would just kill a man for committing a petty crime?"
He crossed his rock-solid arms over a chest that made me think he could probably, should he choose to do so, crush me between his pecks, "There is no room in this world for those who devote their lives to the suffering of others."
At first, my mouth and brain were running on years of teachings and common sense given by my parentals elders in the village I traveled to virtually every day, "That's horrible! Punishment is one thing, but death should be reserved for those crimes which--"
"Which have already gotten someone killed?" Gilder interjected in a dogmatic tone.
My eyes scanned his face as he spoke, my mouth half-agape and my chest raising and falling too quickly, resentment and anger making me lose my breath faster than I could get it in. "T-that's. . . no one is guilty until they commit the crime they are being accused of," I said, my voice low and hedged in growing doubt, all of the knowledge rushing to my mind for me to scan frantically, trying to find something to counter him solidly.
Gilder saw it, and pushed hard in his words, hoping to sway me to his own beliefs, "Yes, but one thing leads to another. There are scores of honest people out there, and what sense does it make to allow someone to live if they do such things as stealing, assaulting innocent people, and--" his eyes bored into me, and I could barely hold the gaze with him, "-- and rape."
"But--"
"I know," he interrupted again, "you agree that someone who rapes should be put to death without questioning. My point is this: in the same way murder can destroy a person's life and those around him, so can a mere act of thievery. I have no tolerance for it. . . should I?"
I considered, frowning, what he had said, but he was not finished. "Besides," he chided with a hint of satisfaction to his voice, "death is a release, not a punishment."
Right then, I knew I could not agree with him. It was wrong, somehow, on some level. The idea still jestated in my brain, and I had not satisfied myself with an undeniable response, but at the moment, I would wait before making a decison. Still, a question lingered within me, "And what happens if you catch a whole crowd in the act?"
Without missing a beat, Gilder responded, "At which point I wade through the crowd swinging my blade in a 360 degree arc, and, if someone gets hit, Atari," he shrugged as if uninterested in what he was saying, "then someone gets hit."
The point is this: I don't try to tell you what is right and wrong-- so you don't try to tell me.
- Atari
Quote of the Day:
At which point I wade through the crowd swinging my blade in a 360 degree arc, and, if someone gets hit, Atari. . . then someone gets hit."
