wash
Mega Poster
Best horror film ever.kimahri said:
This is kind of random, but can anyone familiar with The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly tell me which cut they preferred ( theatrical or extended) and why?
"Now Showing"
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
This is kind of random, but can anyone familiar with The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly tell me which cut they preferred ( theatrical or extended) and why?
I'm not going to get into the Alien argument, because people who don't like it are just plain wrong - it's very simple 
Well, I watched Final Destination 2 last night (keeping this kind of on topic :lol: ). It's dreadful, but great entertainment. Ollie is right, kind of.
It's just meant to be an hour and a half of crap story and fun deaths. The enjoyment is waiting to see how the people die, then watching them die. You have no desire to see the characters developed because they're so poorly acted and wafer thin. It's brains at the door entertainment and it does it well. It doesn't make them good films, just good entertainment - there is a big difference.
Saw WAS actually good. It was a great little film on a tight budget. It worked well and I enjoyed it so much I watched it again (a few months later). I even watched the second, third and fourth. Each time with mounting dismay and horror - at how badly they had shoehorned story lines in as a vague excuse to make more films.
It's not clever at all - it's just forcing in stories to try and plug plot holes. It's actually very sad to do these things retroactively.
See, look at TV shows like Babylon 5 and Lost. In the first few episodes, there are bits of story left dangling, and hints to things - which don't happen for a long time further down the storyline. This is clever, because later on you go "OMG! So THAT'S what that was all about all that time ago!!!"
With the Saw films you go "WTF? That's just a piss poor excuse to make a botched story line to fit in somewhere". It only works if you have the power to ignore everything and suspend disbelief to the point you think Saw: The Ride is gonig to be a good coaster before it opens.
There's a big difference between being clever and writing a story arc that you follow from the get go, and mindlessly hammering in a story to fit some holes you can see in previous plots.
Ollie said:
Well, I watched Final Destination 2 last night (keeping this kind of on topic :lol: ). It's dreadful, but great entertainment. Ollie is right, kind of.
It's just meant to be an hour and a half of crap story and fun deaths. The enjoyment is waiting to see how the people die, then watching them die. You have no desire to see the characters developed because they're so poorly acted and wafer thin. It's brains at the door entertainment and it does it well. It doesn't make them good films, just good entertainment - there is a big difference.
Ollie said:
Saw WAS actually good. It was a great little film on a tight budget. It worked well and I enjoyed it so much I watched it again (a few months later). I even watched the second, third and fourth. Each time with mounting dismay and horror - at how badly they had shoehorned story lines in as a vague excuse to make more films.
It's not clever at all - it's just forcing in stories to try and plug plot holes. It's actually very sad to do these things retroactively.
See, look at TV shows like Babylon 5 and Lost. In the first few episodes, there are bits of story left dangling, and hints to things - which don't happen for a long time further down the storyline. This is clever, because later on you go "OMG! So THAT'S what that was all about all that time ago!!!"
With the Saw films you go "WTF? That's just a piss poor excuse to make a botched story line to fit in somewhere". It only works if you have the power to ignore everything and suspend disbelief to the point you think Saw: The Ride is gonig to be a good coaster before it opens.
There's a big difference between being clever and writing a story arc that you follow from the get go, and mindlessly hammering in a story to fit some holes you can see in previous plots.