Messages

First one is very good,second worth a watch for Davy Jones(better effect wise than Gollum IMO) the rest sucked.

The first one has an undeniable charm, the second one has fantastic action and slapstick sequences, is genuinely as entertaining as it's predecessor, but would have been better as a self-contained film, the third was truly snooze-inducing (not to mention having a horrendously distracting tint to it) and a complete waste of time you'll never get back, and the last one I haven't seen or will likely bother to unless it comes on telly... it's a franchise that should have been put to bed already!

Isn't it more likely that it's just a massively overhyped, ultimately mediocre film by a director who has spent the last 20 years making largely mediocre films?
To me the enormous budget for the film and the apparent focus on spectacle betrayed a lack of confidence by the filmmakers - if they had genuinely great ideas then they would have been able to deliver a thrilling film on a third of what this film cost.

I agree with that assessment of Sir Ridley's outpost the last two decades (despite having a real soft spot for 1492: Conquest of Paradise, an underrated gem in my opinion), but I thought Kingdom of Heaven was a remarkable and accomplished piece of epic filmmaking, well, the full 194-minute (overture and intermission included) was...

With all the reviews mostly in, it appears that Prometheus is a visually stunning and thoroughly entertaining movie, but that's about it, and it unfortunately promised so much more, I'm starting to think my initial instinct about this film has proven to be accurate, in that it was a story that simply didn't have enough ideas or meat on the bones to justify it's telling, and is little more than an attempt to justify the extension of a franchise (especially the utter gall of holding things back for a potential sequel) that's been done since 1992, but like it's lead character (Ripley or the Alien, take your pick), has proven nearly impossible to kill off completely...

Why not just have a brand new character, who is a horribly dis-formed mutant, with physic abilities like Anderson which is what makes him such a challenging foe for Dredd? If you feel Death needs to be changed so far from the original concept in order that he doesn't come off as goofy, why bother at all?

Would Death be better as a completely or partly CGI creation, or as an actor in full costume and prosthetics (like the Mouth of Sauron in ...Return of the King), I guess it depends on how the DNA guys approach and present the character onscreen...

Surely the Minty Production team deserve some recognition for all their sterling efforts?

And possible inclusion on the Dredd DVD and Blu ray when it's released, THAT would be awesome...

Early reactions are starting to trickle in across the interwebz. So far, early signs are good.
Critical reaction seesm to be waffly, useless, and a bit sniffy. Which is most likely a sign that the film is great.

Not according to the 'Empire' review - http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137119 - they basically take a rubber hose to it, and then give it a kicking for good measure...

Early reactions are starting to trickle in across the interwebz. So far, early signs are good.
Critical reaction seesm to be waffly, useless, and a bit sniffy. Which is most likely a sign that the film is great.

The only opinions I'll take to the bank are those of y'all on the forum here, and when giving your considered opining on the movie, for pity's sake, be as liberal as possible - five words I NEVER thought I'd say - with the spoiler blocks please... I'll say this straight out though, if the Space Jockey turns out to be Keyser Soze, I'm walking out right there...

Whoops. Probably should've went to his actual page rather than paraphrase something from the ticker, but laziness and all that..
"I haven't seen it, it was only John. Personally I am not too impressed with what I've seen, but I have plenty confidence in John's judgement."
Fixed 'impressed' to be all gentlemanly like. I now see where he's coming from with the riot gear comment. Though I quite like the look myself.

He wouldn't want it closer to the costumes in the 1995 debacle, would he?  The whole 'riot gear' thing is an essential element of the Judge's look, they're basically a cross between a full-time riot cop and a one-man SWAT unit, I for one absolutely love the new Judge costumes body armour in Dredd, it's Mega-City One I'm dying to see...

Well blow me down who'd o' thunk it. it would appear that we'll be getting new Mysterious Cities of Gold, what 30 years after the originals. How cool is that!
http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/05/29/mysterious-cities-of-gold-cartoon-sequel-is-actually-happening/

BLASPHEMY! HERESY! FIRE UP THE STAKE! THIS OUTRAGE WILL NOT STAND!

... at least on the bright side, they're not remaking Ulysees 31 - the single greatest cartoon show in the history of the universe, and I'll accept no dissenting opinions on the matter - if that ever happens, Smoochies H.Q. prepares for total war...

The 'virgin' birth was an intepretaion -or mis-translation- of the original texts which originally meant 'young' woman, not virgin. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." You could interpret from that, if you so wish, that most young women would be virigns too but that doesn't make it the crux of the word's original use in scripture.

You've been watching Guy Ritchie's Snatch recently, haven't you Joe, the whole opening conversation in that film sounds suspiciously like your above post, admit it now dude ...

I don't want to sound like I'm always picking a fight with you Beaky, you're plainly an intelligent and articulate fellow and I do enjoy your non-political, non-religious contributions here, and I do not enjoy offending you.

No offence ever taken (and certainly none ever intended, I do tend to jump in with both feet sometimes ), Tordel' dude, and I never thought you were ever picking a fight with me, you just go on the way you're going, I'm a big boy, I can take it (said the vicar to the porn star...OO-ER MISSUS!).

Alex Garland pretty much stated that Death was his original take for Dredd, but wisely figured it wasn't suitable for the first film, and John Wagner said on his Facebook page that Death "might be in the next one", meaning he's clearly had discussions with Garland on the subject, so all signs clearly point to Death being in the sequel, if they get one, and I wouldn't speculate on how the DNA Films people will present the ghoulish one onscreen, they've already clearly proven their firm grasp of Dredd's world, and I have full confidence they'll do the character of Death justice... as long as they concentrate on MC-1 and not waste time on the inferior Cursed Earth location, they'll do well, just my own two cents, 'nuff said.

[they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them]

So you agree with this then?
Lev. 20:13:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I was going to let this go, but have to reply just once more - this has become a theological thread - and then I'm done, so listen up children, just one more time;

It's not that I agree or disagree with that regulation, it simply doesn't apply to now or to me as a Gentile, it was EXCLUSIVELY for the Israelites in the wilderness in advance of the Messiah, after which the Mosaic Law effectively became null and void because grace replaced legalism.  And when Jesus referred to "every jot and tittle" being fulfilled, He didn't mean the legal regulations, but rather the fruition of the Father's plan for salvation and the eventual new Heaven and Earth.  And how do I know these things, Joe, because it's in the Bible, if you choose not to believe it, fine, but I for one do, that's where we differ...

No thanks God!

That is a remark so monumentally stupid, arrogant, and foolishly reckless, I genuinely fear for the day when you're going to have give account to God for that remark, and believe me, you won't cop an attitude then, not trying to sound confrontational, just looking out for you dude, I would sincerely hope you take that one back...

There, now I'm done.

[Re the vehicles: a point was made, valid to a large extent, that in a society like Mega-City One where most of the citizens are impoverished, retread vehicles would be the norm. Sorry, don't know when a trailer will be out, but the movie won't be long. No doubt you'll all come on here and let me know what you think when you've seen it!]

John Wagner posts a little bit more on his Facebook regarding Dredd:

Re the vehicles: a point was made, valid to a large extent, that in a society like Mega-City One where most of the citizens are impoverished, retread vehicles would be the norm. Sorry, don't know when a trailer will be out, but the movie won't be long. No doubt you'll all come on here and let me know what you think when you've seen it!

I agree with him about the vehicles, I want to see a recognizable city in Dredd, it may be set in the future, just not the distant future, and the decade-after-next look and feel worked like gangbusters for RoboCop  and it'll do likewise for Dredd, and if the trailer was going to be shown before Prometheus, I think John Wagner would know, meaning it's likely not...

Genuinely not sure if you are being serious or not but in case you are:
Hate the sin and love the sinner? Is gay orientation a sin?  Even if you define it as such-In your opinion have Christians ever fallen a little short of that your standard maybe done less well with the love the sinner bit? Maybe got wrapped up in a little good old fashioned plain prejudice and wrapped selective bits of the Bible around it to justify that all too human prejudice ? I think (respectfully) that they might have.  The message? One of grace and love. A recognition that we all sin and come short. A shaking of the head on my part when people get all smug because certain people perhaps sin differently than they do. If you are going to start with gays lets move on to see what the Bible says about people like the gluttonous etc Lets go the whole hog. And while we are it lets question why Jesus never once referred to gays but did have so much to say about justice and intolerance.  I'm not saying its not a difficult issue on which people can hold genuine and sincere differences-it plainly is. But lets approach it with brutal honesty.

I AM serious - do I look like I'm joking ? - and no, the orientation itself is not a sin, but acting on it most certainly is.  I fully admit we all fall short of God's perfect standard (I'm front of the line on that one), but we Christians are also called to rebuke immorality when we see it, and that whole 'grace and love' thing doesn't give you carte blanche to live as you please, the apostle Paul roundly condemned that viewpoint in Romans, yes, God is a god of grace and love, but He's also one of holiness and righteousness, and he does set a moral code of behavior to live by, that's not prejudice.  And the reason Jesus didn't mention homosexuals is because that behavior was already condemned in the Old Testament, and He was fulfilling the law not rewriting it.  I respect the fact you hold a different opinion on the matter, Prodigal dude, and I'm just being honest about mine, I simply cannot call that which an abomination in the eyes of God something other than what it is, I fear the judgement of God over the mockery of men any day, but that's just me...

The Almighty also condemns polyester shirts.
(Leviticus 19:19)
'Nuff said.

That's a totally tired and frankly bunk attack line, those regulations were given by God to the Israelites in the wilderness to keep them on the straight and narrow until the Promised Land and the Messiah, they never applied to us Gentiles and don't even apply to the Jews anymore, nice try though...

[Nobody else]

Nobody else is trying to tell folk what they can say or what they can read. Kiefer Sutherland and Murdoch's Fox network used 24 as a vehicle to articulate a particular world view at a crucial point in The War On Terror; I didn't really watch it. Phoning the Ford motor company to demand they withdrew their cringeworthy sponsorship of the show, so nobody who liked it was allowed to make their own mind up- as 1MMoms advocate- seems mental.

You clearly have never watched 24, bikini kill dude, that show has more white American corporate villains than Middle Eastern and/or ethnic ones, the writing staff had more Democrats than Republicans in it, Kiefer Sutherland is a self-confessed "socialist" in his political views, and the show was created before 9/11 took place... 24 is no more an advocation of the Bush Doctrine than 007 is a comment on British foreign policy, you really need to stop reading those kooky left-wing websites, with due and sincere respect...

isn't it odd that when christians complain about losing their rights, its usually the right to treat someone else as a second class citizen. 

... or the right to liberty of conscience...

I think it also needs to be highlighted that not every Christian subscribes to an anti-gay stance. For me one of the tragedies of this kind of debate is that it highlights peoples often correct perceptions of people like me. We God-botherers have some serious issues at times.  In this instance I think it may be quite justifiable to shoot the messenger-we've screwed the message up to a criminal degree.

So you think, respectfully asking, that when the Almighty condemns that particular behavior, He has issues, do you?  And Christians are supposed to be salt and light to the world, not to compromise with it, and as far as supposedly screwing up the message, which message is that precisely, we are to love the sinner but hate the sin, and if some get confused about that, they need to take it up with the Almighty, it really is that simple... I LOVE this thread, it really is a stimulating one, if only the rest of the interweb was this engaging and thoroughly decent in the discussion of emotive issues, bravo...