Brother Shatterstone
Dark Moderator of PbP
Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
That's cause Archangel is the coolness times infinity.
(And far more deadlier too)
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Sexy mutant for X-men 3?
- Thread starter Pseudonym
- Start date
That's cause Archangel is the coolness times infinity.
(And far more deadlier too)
Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
Marvel Girl and Angel forever!!!Brother Shatterstone said:That's cause Archangel is the coolness times infinity.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Only if you don't have a clue about X-Men comic books.warlord said:
But since we're on that subject... I can see Michael Boreanaz as Caliban/Death.
John Crichton
First Post
Nah. Their mere presense doesn't make a film for me. They have both been in some sub-par flicks. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate X-men - it's just way down my list of comic book movies. I simply liked Blade a little bit more.fett527 said:
And Blade 2 was excellent. The only Superhero flicks that I liked more were Spidey 2, X2 and Superman. There were others that were just as good (like The Crow & Batman Begins). Blade 2 was dark dark and darker. My kinda movie. And the action was superb. You could actually *see* most of the fights which is a huge plus.
Last edited:
Lord Pendragon
First Post
I agree. Except for X2. That one's definitely several rungs down, IMO.John Crichton said:
Blade 2 was not excellent. By any stretch, by any rule, by any standard.
Well, okay, by mine.
I say this as a fight scene snob: Don't change the rules of combat in your movie for no reason. Don't have someone fight like a samurai in one scene and a barroom brawler in another scene. If there's some powerful emotional character thing that makes your hero fight better at the end, sure, fine, as long as you've got it characterized well. But if you have:
- A scene where Blade goes toe-to-toe with his badass sword-skillz in a dazzling display of slightly sped-up swordwork...
followed by
- A scene where Blade is attacked by a guy with a big iron bar with cement on it, and instead of stepping to the side, Blade decides to do an upward block with his powerful cool sword and just stand there so that the bad guy can kick him in the gut, and then the bad guy does the exact same thing again and Blade, genius martial artist badass, does the exact same block and receives the exact same kick...
No. Really, really, really, no.
Heck, I don't even like guns, and having full machine-gun fire not stop the ubervamps from moving forward in one scene while pistol shots blow them backward in another struck me as massively stupid. Maybe a single pistol shot really would knock someone back more than three or four seconds of automatic machine-gun fire hitting your torso, and I'm just full of it -- but I don't think that kind of thinking, even if wrong, makes me unique, and I'd have liked to see some explanation of that... provided that they were right about that.
After seeing the idiocy of Blade's swordwork -- brilliant in one scene, punked by a guy with a pylon in another -- I just chalked it up to lazy, stupid writing that had the hero's ability rise or fall to the level of his opponent.
If you screw up the fight scenes in a movie that is all about the badass fight scenes, you aren't gonna get a "great movie" from me.
Well, okay, by mine.
I say this as a fight scene snob: Don't change the rules of combat in your movie for no reason. Don't have someone fight like a samurai in one scene and a barroom brawler in another scene. If there's some powerful emotional character thing that makes your hero fight better at the end, sure, fine, as long as you've got it characterized well. But if you have:
- A scene where Blade goes toe-to-toe with his badass sword-skillz in a dazzling display of slightly sped-up swordwork...
followed by
- A scene where Blade is attacked by a guy with a big iron bar with cement on it, and instead of stepping to the side, Blade decides to do an upward block with his powerful cool sword and just stand there so that the bad guy can kick him in the gut, and then the bad guy does the exact same thing again and Blade, genius martial artist badass, does the exact same block and receives the exact same kick...
No. Really, really, really, no.
Heck, I don't even like guns, and having full machine-gun fire not stop the ubervamps from moving forward in one scene while pistol shots blow them backward in another struck me as massively stupid. Maybe a single pistol shot really would knock someone back more than three or four seconds of automatic machine-gun fire hitting your torso, and I'm just full of it -- but I don't think that kind of thinking, even if wrong, makes me unique, and I'd have liked to see some explanation of that... provided that they were right about that.
After seeing the idiocy of Blade's swordwork -- brilliant in one scene, punked by a guy with a pylon in another -- I just chalked it up to lazy, stupid writing that had the hero's ability rise or fall to the level of his opponent.
If you screw up the fight scenes in a movie that is all about the badass fight scenes, you aren't gonna get a "great movie" from me.
Brother Shatterstone
Dark Moderator of PbP
takyris said:
That would have more to do with a caliber of the round... Some automatic weapons, note there are exceptions, fire a smaller round than some handguns. (It’s more about quantity and not quality in an automatic weapon.)
Note: I feel asleep the only time I tried to watch Blade 2, which probably doesn’t speak good for Blade 2, but I cannot really comment on the scene at hand in specifics. Only in generation.
You would have more reaction from a single round of a 50 caliber desert eagle than you would from a couple of rounds from an MP5.
Right. But if it's one Desert Eagle shot as opposed to 3 or 4 full seconds of absorbing machine gun fire, you think the one full Desert Eagle shot is going to knock a target back further than 3 or 4 seconds of being hit by, um, XX rounds per second from the machine gun?
That's my issue. It's not even an issue with realism, because from what I dimly recall, gunshots don't knock people back in real life. They knock people down from shock. But it's inconsistent to show Bad Guy X walk forward while being hit by full-auto machine-gun stuff and then fly backward from a single pistol shot, unless the movie rules state that pistols do more damage than machine guns.
And even then, there are times when pistols knock bad guys back and times when pistols are absorbed harmlessly. They were so busy trying to look cool that they never figured out how their cinematic universe should work. Which, as I said, in a story whose only selling point is the coolness of the fights, is not a good thing.
That's my issue. It's not even an issue with realism, because from what I dimly recall, gunshots don't knock people back in real life. They knock people down from shock. But it's inconsistent to show Bad Guy X walk forward while being hit by full-auto machine-gun stuff and then fly backward from a single pistol shot, unless the movie rules state that pistols do more damage than machine guns.
And even then, there are times when pistols knock bad guys back and times when pistols are absorbed harmlessly. They were so busy trying to look cool that they never figured out how their cinematic universe should work. Which, as I said, in a story whose only selling point is the coolness of the fights, is not a good thing.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Ah, that explains my mistake/confusion...Ranger REG said:
vulcan_idic
Explorer
Endur said:
Doubt it. As I see it the writing is already on the wall - the next villian is Famke Janssen as (Dark) Phoenix.
Similar Threads
