Jump to content
sethos

Constantine 2 is DEAD

Recommended Posts

I liked that whole time stops thing too. But what sorta got me was when Lucifer came down and time also stopped, that was probably the only problem that got me becuz it wasn't explained, but Lucifer walking through the broken glass scene was ace.

That was just a manifestation of Luci's power, I think. He's on quite a different level from the other characters in the film, after all.

 

 

yeah that seems reasonable. he shows off his powers but makes himself not much fuss about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh and by the way adrian brown, this is the exact statement from lawrence on imdb about the cutting of ellie:

"Director Francis Lawrence stated that she was left on the cutting room floor because he wanted Constantine to be completely alone when he meets Angela"

 

So why wasn't he alone then ?

He had his little boyfriend, and those geeky occult chaps from his fan club.

And why were there several other "reasons" also mentioned in interviews ... oh, and the cut was only made after test screenings. Which makes Francis's "decisions" seem somewhat forced upon him.

Depending on your view of test screenings.

well i dont know. but i dont care really cause for my part am glad that she was cutted because for me she was the only one who was really 0% of the comic-character. i mean john stayed this cool little bastard to persons not near to him but the polite guy to his friends. he reacted with a bit of anger to gabriel and to god and with distance to midnite. and he used chas like in the delano run as a slave for saving his life.

midnite stayed a freaking witch doctor who was distanced to jc but going on with him if its really necessary. and he played the businessman as mask like in the comics. altough he was not an official friend for john and tried to kill him. gabriel had this up-nosed setup altough he was kinder than in the comic. chas was ok not really chas in the film, but had this delanoish slave-relationship to john, he made what he asked without much fuss. and the first of the fallen finally had this cockiness towards humans who dont has to deal with them just for getting the souls. altough he was far more "charming" in the comic.

but ellie, who was a kind and patient woman with consience in the comic, and thereby was there for john like a friend, was an idiot little bitch who laughed her ass of constantines problem.

so thats why i accepted the other remaining characters in the film but not her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we now that already, but thats no proof that its a bad film-just that it stealed. but as i said i have no problem with that if they make something good out of it. im sorry that so few people found it fresh and cool and beautiful and funny like i did. it really dont deserves that. altough i understand why some people dislike it (not hate it- i dont understand haters) but i hope they will or try to understand why some people like it.

As I said, I respect your opinion. I find films that have stolen a great deal from other films without even trying to disguise the theft or infusing something new and interesting into the scene. I find it creatively lazy. Tears asked where I had seen the scenes before, and I listed them.

 

I'm different from you, I have a different opinion. I will never say that you should not enjoy the film, that you can't think it's a great film. But if you want to discuss the film's merits, I've got a thing or two to say, and we don't see eye to eye. I'm not going to try to argue you down unless you try to change my opinion.

 

Further, if you make ignorant mis-statements ("John Borman directed Lord of the Rings") you should expect to be called on it. For me, this started when Tears made a very incorrect statement. I corrected him on it, and I found no reason to be gentle about it. As someone who works in films, he ought to at least have some idea what he's talking about when he speaks on film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I respect your opinion. I find films that have stolen a great deal from other films without even trying to disguise the theft or infusing something new and interesting into the scene. I find it creatively lazy. Tears asked where I had seen the scenes before, and I listed them.

 

I'm different from you, I have a different opinion. I will never say that you should not enjoy the film, that you can't think it's a great film. But if you want to discuss the film's merits, I've got a thing or two to say, and we don't see eye to eye. I'm not going to try to argue you down unless you try to change my opinion.

 

For me, this started when Tears made a very incorrect statement. I corrected him on it, and I found no reason to be gentle about it. As someone who works in films, he ought to at least have some idea what he's talking about when he speaks on film.

 

I did not make an incorrect statement and it is not your job to call me on it. According to your far reaching philosophy ANY film with actors speaking dialogue using words you've heard before is ripping off the very first motion picture with sound. To say you've seen it all before and then use such ridiculous assumptions - "it was probably in an episode of Buffy" or "Saw it in the comic (which this is afterall based on) "Someone must have put a girl under water since it's just too easy" are kinda ridiculous. What you're saying is - "I didn;t see it myself but I;m sure someone has done it or thought it before." No one is saying Constanteen was great art but to put it down because you THINK it might be derivitive is somewhat silly. I can say with all honesty that the writers tried to avoid all cliches and have been put down in this forum because of it. Any really, past the age of five, has any of us seen a film with something completely new? Something that was not thought of or eluded to in some other media, be it film, TV, radio, cereal box, letter from your mom? The comics themselves rip themselves off constantly. Several of JC's runs have ended in the EXACT same way - not very clever or original at all. But then again, you've probably seen it all anyway. I can only imagine what you might say after viewing a scene with say a pregnant woman climbing up the side of a building while being chased by rabid gargoyles. She's almost to freedom when her unborn child falls out of the womb and dangles below and the gargoyles use it to climb up to devour her... "Well I've seen babies in other movies and ER did an episode with an umbilical getting caught and everyone and his brother is writing a gargoyle story and I once saw a monkey climb a vine to get to a bird..."

 

Isn;t that reaching just a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not make an incorrect statement and it is not your job to call me on it. 

I didn't realize that I needed your permission to have an opinion. Your statements about Terminator and Robocop getting sequels on the basis of their video sales was incorrect.

 

According to your far reaching philosophy ANY film with actors speaking dialogue using words you've heard before is ripping off the very first motion picture with sound.  To say you've seen it all before and then use such ridiculous assumptions - "it was probably in an episode of Buffy"  or "Saw it in the comic (which this is afterall based on) "Someone must have put a girl under water since it's just too easy" are kinda ridiculous.  What you're saying is - "I didn;t see it myself but I;m sure someone has done it or thought it before."  No one is saying Constanteen was great art but to put it down because you THINK it might be derivitive is somewhat silly.  I can say with all honesty that the writers tried to avoid all cliches and have been put down in this forum because of it.  Any really, past the age of five, has any of us seen a film with something completely new?  Something that was not thought of or eluded to in some other media, be it film, TV, radio, cereal box, letter from your mom?  The comics themselves rip themselves off constantly.  Several of JC's runs have ended in the EXACT same way -  not very clever or original at all.  But then again, you've probably seen it all anyway.  I can only imagine what you might say after viewing a scene with say a pregnant woman climbing up the side of a building while being chased by rabid gargoyles.  She's almost to freedom when her unborn child falls out of the womb and dangles below and the gargoyles use it to climb up to devour her...  "Well I've seen babies in other movies and ER did an episode with an umbilical getting caught and everyone and his brother is writing a gargoyle story and I once saw a monkey climb a vine to get to a bird..."

 

Isn;t that reaching just a bit?

You asked for examples, I gave them to you, and now you give me vague discussion that completely fails to rebut my position while mixing my statements with those of other posters. If you want to have an actual discussion about this, tell me, and we'll get down to it. But we can't have a rational, productive discussion if you can't respond in a reasonable, logical fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your statements about Terminator and Robocop getting sequels on the basis of their video sales was incorrect.

well on the terminator special edition dvd they say that after they saw that it was successfull both in cinema AND video sale they decided to do another terminator.

not that i want to quarrel with you i just watched the first and second part on dvd just now again and as i saw this i wanted to post what i heard in the documentation :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, for fuck's sake. Qusoor, Tears...get a room.

Edited by Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, for fuck's sake. Qusoor, Tears...get a room.

 

I think getting a room would be a waste since there's probably nothing I could do with Qusoor behind closed doors that he/she hasn't seen already and I just hate wasting a good three minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tears, get a sense of humour. You're like a fucking broken watch, and you're far too easy.

Just because someone managed to get a vaguely original scene in a movie isn't going to change anyone's opinion of the damn movie. I'm sure new "Deuce Bigelow" movie is going to come up with a few original scenes too, and I don't think anyone is going to be gushing about the "genius" of that movie based on that fact either.

The movies out, some people paid money to see it, other didn't, most people really didn't like it. Give it up, it's over. We know your opinion of the damn thing by now, do you have anything else to say? Because, quite frankly, you're not giving us "man sits on toilet, with feet in water, staring at cat"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tears, get a sense of humour. You're like a fucking broken watch, and you're far too easy.

 

True enough, but Qusoor's being just as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
most people really didn't like it.

well thats really not true...

the hungarians, germans and austrians loved it, and even on most american sites it has ratings below 7= a B. plus the critics half said its good. they are much more really hated films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Hagren.

Most people on this site really didn't seem to like it. A few people on this site did truly enjoy it.

oh, yeah, here on this site its true, altough the most people said its okay for a keanufilm.

plus some people really loved it, some people really hated it.

but as i said the most people enjoyed it as film but not as adaptation of hellblazer

(this text referred just to this sites opinions- the people in sum in the world liked it as far as i know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tears, get a sense of humour. You're like a fucking broken watch, and you're far too easy.

 

True enough, but Qusoor's being just as bad.

 

True enough, but Tears' had the funniest "get a room" come-back.

Tell you what folks, let Tears slag off your workplaces and see how witty are the responses. We may think the film he worked on was a pile of cack but we know humour when we see it shurely ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tears, get a sense of humour. You're like a fucking broken watch, and you're far too easy.

 

True enough, but Qusoor's being just as bad.

 

True enough, but Tears' had the funniest "get a room" come-back.

Tell you what folks, let Tears slag off your workplaces and see how witty are the responses. We may think the film he worked on was a pile of cack but we know humour when we see it shurely ?

 

Well at least you see it, AB. I mean come on, who takes me seriously anymore?? Please!

 

By the way the best film I have seen this year so far - the one that affected me the most - the one that renewed my faith in the power of films was....

 

THE WEDDING CRASHERS. Went in angry at the world, ready to pull the trigger on many bad people, came out loving the world, whistling to birds and wondering why I had such a rag up my ass. If that's not a sign of a good flick, what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True enough, but Tears' had the funniest "get a room" come-back.

Got me there. I'm generally about as funny as bleach.

 

Tell you what folks, let Tears slag off your workplaces and see how witty are the responses. We may think the film he worked on was a pile of cack but we know humour when we see it shurely ?

Anyone who's interested can go here and tell me what shite I write, here and tell me my opinions are worthless, and go here and mock my pathetic resume.

 

Well at least you see it, AB. I mean come on, who takes me seriously anymore?? Please!

I'm beginning to see where the disconnect lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qusoor was obviously attempting to have a serious conversation with Tears, yet Tears threw quotes from my posting, which was an obvious piss, back at Qusoor. I hardly think that's fair.

Besides which, Adrian, I really don't think Tears is paid to come to this website and post, because Lord knows I've tried to see how I could get paid for posting here, but apparently the only position is filled by Rogan (who took a 4 month vacation, while I'm still here!!! :mad: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Qusoor was obviously attempting to have a serious conversation with Tears, yet Tears threw quotes from my posting, which was an obvious piss, back at Qusoor. I hardly think that's fair.

Besides which, Adrian, I really don't think Tears is paid to come to this website and post, because Lord knows I've tried to see how I could get paid for posting here, but apparently the only position is filled by Rogan (who took a 4 month vacation, while I'm still here!!! :mad: ).

 

Well, since I did not suggest Tears was paid to post here I'll put that down to willful misinterpretation on your part. And if John G wants to deny this comment to Tears was nothing more than the "piss" to which you refer, then let him go for it. And since he called Tears with "There was nothing in the film that I hadn't seen before." I think Tears has the right to defend his case without "piss" (taking). Which he did. Now fuck, let's attempt to be civil in our disdain or we might as well be the dickheads painted by Constanteen PR's anti-comicnerd policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, since I did not suggest Tears was paid to post here I'll put that down to willful misinterpretation on your part. And if John G wants to deny this comment to Tears was nothing more than the "piss" to which you refer, then let him go for it. And since he called Tears with "There was nothing in the film that I hadn't seen before." I think Tears has the right to defend his case without "piss" (taking). Which he did. Now fuck, let's attempt to be civil in our disdain or we might as well be the dickheads painted by Constanteen PR's anti-comicnerd policy.

Would you prefer that I agree with fuji that Tears is "full of it?" Once again, Tears made a patently untrue comparison, and I chose to believe he made it out of ignorance rather than malice. I'll admit to cleaving too close to the aphorism; I should have stated ignorance in said post.

 

Tears can certainly defend his position, but he seems unable to directly address what I say. He asked for examples of what I've seen before, and when I give them, I don't get discussion, I get evasion and mischaracterization of what I've posted.

 

So I ask the more-civil individuals of Straight to Hell; how should I respond to Tears in a civil fashion? Should I try elicit discussion, or should I just let the matter drop? PM me if you don't feel this is an appropriate topic for public discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't be civil, ignore him. That's my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...