blogs_blog_1374

Either I'm just as controversial, or you're not as much as you think. XD

 

• Me neither, for the most part. It's entertaining I guess, but it's 99% about the same subject matter which I don't care for.
• Meh. I don't really have favorite directors. Everyone has good and bad movies.
• I don't even know who that is... lawl
• Aww.
• I make a point of HATING Game of Thrones.
• Never watched it. I did like the Rise Of PotA movie, though.
• I loved Salvation. Never watched 2 or 3.
• Never watched it.
• Never watched it.
• Never watched it.
• I've seen more people hate it than like it. I liked it, but I can see where/why people don't.
• I really didn't care for it much either. I didn't get why everyone loved it so much.
• That's my favorite movie XD
• Is that the one with Ewan MacGregor? I never got to finish it but I reeeeeeeally liked what I did see.
• Never watched it.
• Never watched it.
• Ufffff I hated that movie... but you're not the only person I know who liked it.
• Never watched it.
• Never watched it.
• Never watched it.
• Honestly I'd probably agree with you, although I did really enjoy II.
• I don't have favorites :v
• Me too! I thought it was very thoughtful, I'd rather have logic behind the whole concept of the force than have it be some 'magical' idea. In a universe so very integrated with believable concepts and laws, I think it was a very good way to go about it.
• Me too. People think he's a bad actor but honestly he's just typecast, like Will Smith or Johnny Depp.
• Really? Hm. There are elements I like about all three, to be honest.
• I'm verrrrrry picky XD
• Agreed. As are a bunch of others I could name. Like Samuel-flipping-Jackson. Hate that guy.
• Me neither. I honestly like a lot of his movies most people hated.
• Me neither. There are people who have done a heck of a lot worse in Hollywood. :b Plus, he's still a fantastic actor.
• Me too! I very much enjoy a lot of the choices he's made and I respect the direction he went with the movies.
• So do I. I didn't realize until a few years after #1 that people hated Jar Jar, and I still really don't get why.
• Yeah, same :\
• I guess so. I mean I don't get bored if I watch it again, but it just isn't the same.
• Disagree, but whatevs *shrug* I didn't like most of the older Batman movies, but I've enjoyed all 3 newer ones.
• Yeah pretty much. :b
• In many ways, I agree. I choose to think of them as entirely separate things, because they are, and they had a different purpose and a different scope. I was glad to see George do with the newer trilogy what he had always wanted the entire series to be like.

Bonus controversial opinion: I very highly disliked The Amazing Spiderman. He wasn't an awkward genius nerd as Peter Parker, and he wasn't funny or quick-witted as Spiderman, he was just a 'hot' skater and a rude dirtbag. Plus, even though it wasn't canon, I much preferred the idea of the spiderwebs being part of his mutation. Generally the movie was boring to me anyway. The only thing I disliked about the old trilogy was the portrayals of Venom and symbiote Spidey.

 

Kraggh you are a horrible human being and all your opinions suck. >:C (not really) Actually, I agree with quite a few things here:

 

1. I do have to disagree here. I wouldn't say it's the funniest thing I've seen or anything like that, but I do think it's often funny. However, I think it's also funnier if you watch the series in order. For example, I watched a random episode with my sister a few years ago before I had started watching the show and didn't really care about it all that much (wasn't horrible, but...not something I wanted to watch 5 seasons [what they were on at the time]). But I ended up watching it anyway and fell in love. The main thing I love about HIMYM is the characters. It's not just your run-of-the-mill sit-com (geh, I hate Two and a Half Men and other shows), but it gets you invested in the characters, so you'll both laugh and cry ("you" being me, here. =P). I was disappointed with a few episodes this past season, but yeah. I think it's funny because of the characters, so if you get invested in them and enjoy them, it'll be funny, but otherwise, maybe not. *shrug*

 

2. This I definitely have to disagree with. Is he the greatest director, or the greatest character-writer? Maybe not. But I do think he is pretty amazing. But he also has a very distinct..."style" or "fan-group" might be more appropriate. The first time I saw The Avengers, I wasn't all that impressed. But once I got invested in the Marvel universe, and started watching the past movies (which I hadn't, with the exception of Iron Man), I started to become super excited about The Avengers and the Marvel movies in general, and when I saw it again, I absolutely loved it and now it's one of my favorite movies. Before, my favorite movies (and I mean, they still are my favorites) were the Dark Knight Trilogy, but once I stopped expecting that type of movie for every superhero movie, and started really liking the more light-hearted Marvel films, I liked The Avengers so much better.

 

Obviously I’m not saying this is the case with you or even necessarily the case with me. I’m just trying to figure out why I wasn’t impressed at first, and why now Joss Whedon is one of my favorite writers/directors. =P Because he is. The Avengers is one of my favorite movies. Firefly is one of my favorite TV shows (quite possibly my favorite American TV show [Sherlock still takes the top slot]) and Serenity is one of my favorite movies. But again, the first time I watched Firefly, I really liked it, but it wasn’t “one of the best shows ever” for me. But I came back to it, and instantly fell in love. I recently watched the first season of Buffy and fell in love with that, too.

 

So yeah. Totally fine if you don’t like Joss personally, but I do. ^^

 

3. Again, must disagree here. =P But that’s because he’s got a lot of character depth, IMO. If you watch the series in the order Whedon intended, you can really see his character growth, from when how he was during the war, and how he changed after. And how he’s constantly changing because of the people around him and whatnot. I don’t always like everything he does or agree with everything he says or anything like that, but I do really enjoy seeing him. I think my favorite character is River, but my second would be Mal, followed by Jayne.

 

4. Once again, must disagree. =P But that’s probably just a matter of tastes. I’ve only seen him in Firefly, Castle, and Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, and out of those I think his best performance is definitely Firefly because he did show a lot of different things, and I thought the character he played forced him to force himself as an actor. I recently watched the episode commentaries (the ones that had them, anyway), and the commentators would often comment on Fillion’s performance in one scene or another, and I always agreed with them. He had some really fantastic moments as an actor on that show, I think.

 

In Castle, he definitely plays a very specific character, and if you don’t like that it’s understandable. He does have some great moments there, too, but for the most part I think the show requires less range than Firefly did.

 

5. Eh, depends if you mean the books or the TV show. I think the books are amazing, and Martin is a fantastic author. As for the TV show . . . I kind of have a love-hate relationship with it. =P It’s pretty good, though, in my opinion. I definitely don’t like a lot of things about it, though.

 

6. Didn’t see.

 

7. Didn’t see.

 

8. Didn’t see.

 

9. Didn’t see.

 

10. Eh, I enjoyed it, but I don’t necessarily think it’s the greatest thing ever, but I should also probably watch it again before I ever talk about it extensively.

 

11. Didn’t see, but from what I have seen of it/heard/etc. I don’t really care for it either, or have any desire to see it in full.

 

12. Agreed! Though I wouldn’t mind seeing it again, because I didn’t hate it or anything, I basically agree with Kayru. I didn’t really care much for it, and I don’t see why everyone loved it so much.

 

13. Disagree here.

 

14. Never saw.

 

15. Eh, it was okay. I kind of liked it too, or at least parts of it.

 

16. Agreed.

 

17. Never saw.

 

18. Never saw these, either. =/ Been meaning to, though!

 

19. Eh, I don’t hate this that much. I need to see it again to have a strong opinion on it. Wasn’t too impressed, but I don’t hate it either.

 

20. Me too! So much better than The Incredible Hulk, too, IMO.

 

21. I did enjoy #3, though I’m not sure it’s my favorite.

 

22. Eh, I’ve only seen him in Smallville, but otherwise I just don’t know enough about the character. He was pretty cool there, though.

 

23. Yeah it’s a pretty cool idea. I guess I don’t have much of an opinion on them either way.

 

24. Definitely agreed. Speed remains one of my favorite movies.

 

25. I need to watch them again to decide.

 

26. Me neither. I don’t have anything against it, it’s just never appealed to me. *shrug*

 

27. Agreed, though I still do like him. He was great in the Dark Knight Trilogy, as well as The Shawshank Redemption and Se7en.

 

28. Eh, no opinion.

 

29. Same. I still really like Gibson (not some of the choices he’s made personally, but . . . =P)

 

30. Me too.

 

31. Ewoks, definitely. Jar Jar Binks . . . he’s okay. I never really had a strong opinion of him, and was surprised when I found out how much people hate him. I don’t particularly like him, but I don’t loathe him either.

 

32. This is how I felt the first time I saw it. But once I started liking the universe more (i.e. superheroes, particularly more light-hearted ones) I fell in love with it.

 

33. Definitely disagreed here. It remains one of my favorite films, even after watching it so many times. But hey, personal tastes. *shrug*

 

34. Never saw the Adam West one, but I can see how Batman Begins has an appeal over TDK/TDKR to some people. Personally, I prefer TDK and TDKR, but I do really love BB, particularly the first act of it.

 

35. Disagreed, because I liked the character of Ra’s more, but I can see how it could be considered putting Qui-Gon in a Batman movie. =P

 

36. Eh, disagreed here, though I did enjoy I-III and don’t hate them like some people do. But I enjoy the original trilogy better overall.

 

37. (Kayru--The Amazing Spider-Man) I wouldn't say I highly disliked it, but I wasn't as impressed as a lot of people were. It was just an "okay" movie for me, and I think overall I enjoy the original trilogy better.

 

---

 

But yeah, most of the disagreements just come to personal taste. *shrug* Also, I'm planning on posting a couple blog entries soon ranking Nolan's movies, the Avenger movies, and maybe a couple other entries on films, which from this I think you might disagree with some things lol, but I'll enjoy seeing your opinions when I get them up if you decide to respond. Some of my disagreements here are fleshed out in said blog entries.

Morgan Freeman is overrated

 

 

But in one of your other blog entries you wrote:

 

 

 

Morgan Freeman is awesome, but what else is new?

 

So... which opinion do you hold?

 

(Also Kingdom of the Crystal Skull FTW.)

10, 15, 30, 31, 34: I totally agree with you on these point.

 

1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 26: I disagree with you on these points, but I can see where you're coming from.

 

27, 32, 36: You are utterly and completely wrong and you must change your view NOW.

 

 

ok

3. I don't like Mal Reynolds.

But but but how?

 

 

It looked fake to me.

 

Gee, I wonder why.

ok

 

-Tyler

I had a half-full reply to this typed up, then my mother used my computer and accidently exited out of the tab. So I'll just summarize by saying that I agree with you for the most part, except for Inception, which I find to be an extraordinary film in every aspect.

 

By the way, Velox, when I first saw the first couple of numbers you replied to, I swear I thought I would find the longest reply in BZPower history. I scrolled down, and much to my relief, I didn't have as much reading to do as I thought.

 

-Rez

1. Agreed.

2. Only movie I've seen that he directed is the Avengers, so I can't judge... but I will say Whedon was one of the screewriters of Toy Story, so...

3-4. Eh, Castle is OK. I'll watch it if nothing else is on.

5. Agreed.

6-10. Never saw.

11. Agreed. I don't like 3D for some reason.

12. I thought it was OK. Not great but OK, although it went a bit overboard with the environmentalist stuff in the second act.

13-14. Never saw.

15-16. Agreed. People tend to look at the absurd stuff in KoTKS, but really it's about as absurd as the Indian stuff in Temple of Doom

17-21. Never saw.

22. Aquaman isn't terrible, but Aquaman jokes are still funny. XD
23. I don't really like it per say, but it is a more than adequate explanation of Force ability. People tend to forget it's just a power-level gimmick to establish Anakin as the Chosen One - it's not actually the Force, just a way of measuring.

24-26. Never saw.

27. Most everything I'm seen him in has been good.

28-29. OK.

30. Agreed. People want him to not exist at this point, but if he didn't exist we wouldn't have Star Wars OR Indiana Jones. Sorry, can't hate a guy that made those two things.

31. They're OK, much more the Ewoks than Binks though. Jar Jar is just annoying after a while.

32. I liked it. What's wrong with popcorn movies?

33. Never saw.

34. I liked it myself, although I haven't seen the last two or the Burton films.

35. Agreed. Qui-Gon is one of the coolest parts of The Phantom Menace.

36. Um... OK. I liked all of them (Episode II is easily the worst and it still has a lot of great moments), but the only one on-par with the originals is Revenge of the Sith, and that is only on par with Return of the Jedi (which is a fantastic movie). I think the whole of the original trilogy (Episodes IV and especially Episode V) is superior to the whole of the sequel trilogy IMO.

Bonus Kayru opinion 37. Never saw it, never will. I was disappointed enough with Spiderman 3 (and it wasn't that bad) after the first two (especially the second) are among my favorite movies ever), and I have no intention of having my memories of them ruined by a new, mediocre interpretation.

There's a lot to reply to, but I'm going to boil this down to the most common responses I got to this. First, though, I'm going to clarify that unless I worded something really strongly, I didn't personally feel strongly about something myself. For example, I said that I like the "prequel" trilogy (I'm not sure how I feel about calling them prequels, seeing as the original trilogy is appropriately numbered in anticipation of the first three chapters) better than the original. That isn't to say that I like it more by a huge margin. They're almost exactly the same. It's genuinely very hard to choose between them. But compared to the well-represented internet sentiment, I like them more than the originals. Sorry, but I just thought they were awesome. There are plenty of other movies that I either like or dislike (not being particularly passionate about the subject matter, however) that don't necessarily align with popular opinion. I label these as "controversial" a bit satirically, because people get pretty stuck up about their opinions on what movies are great and which ones are terrible. Elsewhere on the internet, not necessarily on BZPower, expressing some of these would result in a serious flame war, almost inevitably with someone saying "anyone who thinks X must be [insert incredibly deragatory term here]." It's just nice for me to express where I disagree with popular sentiment and get these things off my chest.

 

Moving on to the comments.

 

Kayru:

 

You're a pretty cool dude, and I'm not trying to say a certain word that's censored on BZPower! I'm glad that you're not controlled by the opinions of the masses and try to see things the way they are. As for your bonus opinion, I sort of agree. This first installment hasn't outdone the first installment of Raimi's trilogy, not as a standalone. However, I think it's doing a good job of setting up something larger that, taken as a whole, could potentially outdo the story of Raimi's trilogy. I still believe that Raimi's Spiderman has one of those quintessential feels that a lot of Superhero films lack, though, and it will be a while before that classic "movie feel" is discovered again. Actually, it reminds me a lot of the original Superman movie, from which is took major inspiration in terms of style, so I can see why I like it.

 

Velox:

 

How respectful! I'm glad we can disagree with grace. Yeah, I'm one of those people who likes Batman Begins over other Batman films, since to me it feels a lot truer to what's quintessentially a Batman movie, whereas the others tried pretty hard to make a Batman movie more than a Batman movie. The results were fine, but I don't feel like calling them masterpieces like everyone else. Fact is, a lot of Batman fans have been grumbling about how now most people think they know Batman but really they know Nolan's Batman, who's very different from the classic Batman of the comics. He had an interesting portrayal, but it felt like an Elseworlds story, except for Batman Begins, which had the whole feel of Gotham and captured the entirety of the Batman world and its atmosphere pretty well.

 

It's also pretty cool that you can admit where you don't feel strongly opinionated. Sometimes people should watch something a few times before they make up their minds on how they feel. That's what had to happen with me and The Dark Knight, actually. As Kayru said, it doesn't get boring afterword, but it just never had the appeal that it did the first time and I'm not sure why it's so exceptional that it stands out as a landmark film, other than it brought a lot of gravitas to the dramas that were all very typical of superhero movies (all without necessarily being, in my mind, definitive).

 

It's interesting that you should bring up Speed. I rank that as a classic action movie, even if it is "Die Hard on a bus."

 

Just curious, though, as to how you define what makes for a favorite movie for you. You have a lot of action films, and there's not necessarily anything wrote with that, but I realize that it's very different from how I look at movies. Mine tend to be either uber-meaningful in ways that resonate with me on deep emotional levels, or they're something classy with an aesthetic that I recognize as historically significant and captures the essence of what cinema is all about. Which requires a big, long blog entry to explain, but I'll just sum up my thoughts with a few questions. For example, I would just wonder how much personal meaning you attach to movies like It's A Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Diary of Anne Frank, The Princess Bride, Ben Hur, Titanic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Sound of Music, Singin' in the Rain, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, The Godfather, The Godfather: Part II, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of the Lambs, The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump, Toy Story, Stand By Me, Dead Poets Society, Good Morning Vietnam!, Rocky, Amadeus, A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13, Life is Beautiful, Schindler's List, and any one of the classic Disney animated movies. Typically, when people tell me of their favorite movies, they tend to list one of these. Especially the last thing I mentioned, since animated movies tend to often be peoples' favorite movies, only they tend not to "count" them.

 

I realize that, of course, part of my perspective comes from the fact that I see a lot of movies. It changes the way I look at things.

 

V1P2:

 

I'm glad you asked! So basically, I think he's awesome, but it's possible to be awesome and still be overrated. I sort of formed this opinion of him over the summer when I was down at Universal Studios, and they had some sort of light show with him narrating. My sister said "Everything's better with Morgan Freeman." My mother and I were a little skeptical to that point. He's very charismatic and charming, and we like him, but the thing is, I would have to say that he's overrated as an actor. In fact, I wonder if I would even want to call him an actor so much as an onscreen personality. He consistently plays himself in whatever role he plays. He is always the calm, sage individual with the dramatic voice. To his credit, he's not defined by any particular role (although perhaps the most iconic was God in Bruce Almighty, which solidified him as one of Hollywood's ultimate "large hams"). Want someone who's instantly noble, sage, and respectable? Cast Freeman. Only problem is, I honestly don't think that anything he's played has been a stretch for him. They're all just him playing himself. I would like to see him break his mold a little bit and do some character acting. Otherwise, I honestly feel that having Morgan Freeman in a film is practically breaking the fourth wall. Depending on the feel you're going for, that may or may not be a good thing. Take his role as Lucius Fox, for example, in which he was specifically cast to make the Dark Knight movies feel big and movie-like. That was good, but he would have not fit in with the cast of Lincoln or Passion of the Christ, which were the types of films that felt like portals to the very real past.

 

Meanwhile, there are certain large hams I like more and just want to see more often, but I'm just getting more and more Morgan Freeman. I have nothing against him, and he motivated me to see movies that he's in, but I wouldn't mind seeing Robin Williams playing himself in a highly anticipated movie, or various other really respected actors. Then there's the breed of actors known as those with "dramatic baritone voices." Christopher Lee, Liam Neeson, Benedict Cumberbatch, James Earl Jones, Ian McKellen, Anthony Hopkins, and Alan Rickman. Perhaps it would make them slightly less convincing actors if they got around, though, but they all have a surprising range of roles -- and a range within their roles -- that Morgan Freeman hasn't yet demonstrated. But perhaps that's the very reason they're not seen in multiple movies per year, since Freeman is one of those characters who a director either immediately wants in his film or not, and it's not too difficult to figure out how to write his characters, so I just sort of assume that he walks on the set, does his thing in one shoot, and walks off.

 

In any case, he has a lot of exposure and is a popular culture phenomenon. You know, one of those go-to guys. Not bad, and he certainly fits the bill. But there are times when I think that a better actor could be chosen and casting Morgan Freeman -- while hardly a miscasting because the roles he plays are roles he obviously fits into -- still lacks a certain freshness.

 

Finally, I think that Hollywood needs more people known for dramatic tenner, yes tenner, voices. As in, tennor but still recognizable, and not for an accent. Some of the greatest orators in history were tenners. And while a baritone voice has the power to command, the tenner has the power to pierce. If Morgan Freeman really wanted to impress me, he would convincingly play a character with a high tenner voice.

 

Legolover-361

 

Hey, if I don't like him I don't like him. I don't dislike him, but I just don't find the charm that people often attribute to him. I see him in a lot of Top 10 lists, and I just can't put him in any such lists, not even really a Top 100 list because, as I've said with Velox, I've acquainted myself with a lot of characters and movies over time. He has an appeal, and I see it, but I just don't consider it classic, and he doesn't stand out from the crowd. Does he have a little more depth than Han Solo? Yes, he does, but Han Solo was just such a quintessential experience and very classically done.

 

The Remorseful Automoton

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, whether your agree with that point or not, or whether you were being sarcastic or not. Since you single that out, I will explain my opinion on the matter regardless. At the time, people were raving about the special effects being ground breaking and some of the most amazing ever seen. Personally, I thought that they were better than average, but special effects have come a long way. This wasn't like Star Wars coming out in the late 70's, back when there was hardly an effects industry. After Star Wars, the effects film practically came its own genre within production companies and from then on constantly began improving. I would say that the other two giant leaps have been Tron and Jurassic Park, but since then better special effects have been a common expectation.

 

For a film like Avatar to come along was inevitable, and what it had done in its scope Star Wars Episode III had already pioneered (to less critical success). The major difference about Avatar was that it made 3D more than just an occasional gimmick. But it was hardly a monumental leap that created a "before and after" epoch in the special effects industry. I will agree that the film was truly unprecedented in its scope, but I personally didn't find that the CG didn't have a tangible realness like Jurassic Park did. It honestly felt more like a video game. A major part of this could be blames on the bright colors of the setting. I'm not sure how it would have looked like if the palette had been more subdued, but the human eye has a keen ability to judge that which is real from that which looks like an imitation of that which is real. I believe that the hardest thing to convincingly capture with CGI is flesh, and to date I'm hard-pressed to find a film that can do these special effects without feeling like special effects, such as in The Life of Pi. And the reason why it's easier to do in a film like that is because the special effects can be concentrated on one subject, so I doubt that the precedent set by that film will be followed up with equivalent quality in Avatar 2.

 

Reznas

 

Sorry to hear about the deletion. I hate it when that happens. With what you have, you'll hardly live up to Velox's longer-than-average post, but that's not a bad thing. The only bad thing I see here is your blatant absurdity of assuming that Velox's post would have been the longest post in BZPower history. You do realize whose blog you're on, right?

 

Moving on to the one subject you addressed, that being Inception. It got nominated for Best Picture and is currently one of the highest rated films of all time on IMDb. It just didn't have "Best Picture Quality" written on it when I saw it. It was well-shot and Nolan deserves credit for taking a twisted, windy storytelling style like that and making sense of it. It was one of those films that came as a pleasant surprise, where everything seemed good enough for everyone to leave satisfied.

 

That having been said, I just can't go around recommending this film to everyone. It has its audience. One of the first things I heard about this film was that an elderly couple was disappointed by it. The second complaint was from my mother, who liked it but easily suffers from motion sickness. You want to wow me with a film? It has to be something both my little sister and my grandma could appreciate. Inception doesn't have that quality. It revels in how smart it is -- rightfully so. It's a smart movie and a refreshing break from the dullard blockbuster action flicks that fill the box office in contemporary society. And of course, all of those movies that have "awesome but dumb" written all over their foreheads are trying to change to be a bit smarter as well, as The Amazing Spider-Man and The Avengers shows. Inception happens to play that game a little better.

 

So it's a smart movie. That's what I mean when I said it had a strong concept. The deliver on the concept itself was very strong. That having been said, I distinguish the story from the concept, and the story is not something that I'm holding close to my heart. The plot worked. It delivered upon the concept. It was definitely a movie with a smart plot. But how would I compare the story to that of The Sound of Music? Not even close. And I would also rank The Sting high than it as well, because the characters were more endearing for me and therefore got me more involved in the story for which the plot was a vessel to. In this, it felt like the story was a vessel for the plot points.

 

As for the characters, they were as developed as the movie demanded them to be. Since it was a smartly made movie, they were smartly written. But not sincerely written. They had depth, but it wasn't something that drew me in. Between these two tragedy-struck individuals, who's going to be a household name: Dom Cobb or Simba? Obviously the latter, right? While I wasn't comparing Dom Cobb to Simba or anyone else in particular throughout the movie, I still recognize when someone reaches that level of iconic truth.

 

(for the record, Mal Reynolds trumps Dom Cobb)

 

So basically, the characters were what the narrative required them to be, which isn't a bad thing. The film was what it was, and it's pretty secure on its own. It's just that it wasn't everything, and I know other movies that come closer to being that, such as Titanic or The Princess Bride.

 

Toa Nidhiki05

 

Regarding Whedon being one of the writers of Toy Story, he admitted that he didn't contribute much. He wrote the line "You are a sad, strange little man." He said that he would have liked to think that they couldn't have done it without him, but then 2 and 3 came out and they proved they could. Toy Stor is probably the greatest thing to his credit, but at the same time he only has it to his credit by the threat of a hair. He was partially involved, but he didn't develop the concept or the central characters. He contributed a lot to Sid and worked with a team of other writers to put everything together. He mainly worked with dialogue, from the impression I'm getting, and he wasn't on the story team. So I'll give him credit where he's due: he knows how to have witty dialogue. He's not quite Mark Twain, but he's vibrant.

 

Meanwhile, if you're going to give him credit for Toy Story, for which he was only partially involved, you must also give him credit for Alien: Resurrection. You can't pick and choose. And for the latter, he was the writer. Nobody ever mentions it because they're very generous, but that's still one of the worst movies ever made, and the story and characters were awful. He has also written Twister, a similarly dull and unentertaining thriller. Perhaps he's improved since then, and his record attests to it, but at the same time I never truly bought into the hype that his shows have brought on. He has yet to write anything quintessential, and I'm not waiting for a time when he actually will.

 

Also, thanks for bringing that bit up about the midi-chloreans. I myself often forget that they themselves are not actually the Force, but merely a means of connecting someone to the Force. It's still pretty spiritual, and it's especially prominent in Star Wars literature about the Jedi Order. I would also compare this to some of the mystic things in mythology; just because we know that oracles had visions because they were drugged by the vapors of their caves, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be mysterious and mystical if one of their visions still happened to be true.

 

And as for your point about The Avengers, I won't say that I didn't like it. It wasn't bad, but it could have been so much more. I came out primarily glad that it wasn't a total disappointment, which highly anticipated superhero movies run the risk of being. And that movie was a giant risk. Everyone knew it. So everyone wanted badly for it to go right. Since everything clicked in that movie, and word of mouth spread that it wouldn't disappoint, people went to watch it. More people watched it than usual because there was more anticipation than usual, because the buildup to that movie was ingenius. That having been said, I've read better ensemble stories of the heroes in the comics. So while the movie delivered as entertainment, it just didn't have enough energy to go in again once the anticipation was gone -- it was therefore not the movie itself that drew me in again but Cobie Smulders.

 

24601