Friday, July 13, 2012

Escape To The Movies: "Ice Age: Continental Drift"

Kinda hard to care.

"Intermission" talks lazy continuity.


Anonymous said...

*insert more bitching about not conforming to Spider-Man fanboyism here*


Anonymous said...

"Just give Gwen Stacy the line about promises you can't keep being the best kind instead. It's in keeping with her character and prevents Spider-Man from looking like a jerkass who hasn't learned a damn thing."

Are you fucking kidding me?! Her father just died as a direct result of this bullshit and you'd have her flippantly disregard his final make Peter look like less of an asshole? How does this make any sense? Between the two of them, Peter has a shit ton less invested in the guy. Hell, he didn't even like him. Now you'd break the story even more than it already is just so you can improve nothing?

Stick with critique. When you point out what's wrong, you're entertaining (even if you're bad at it), but when you try to 'fix' it, you're embarrassing.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

Gotta love it. Bob makes a link to his article that makes it seem as if it is just a general discussion when all it ends up being is more mud slinging at Amazing Spider-Man. And I also love how in that very article he links again to that asshole Devin Faraci's site again.

He writes, "Having to watch obvious, glaring, Creative Writing 101 flaws play out in a movie that cost more than the GNP of some small countries is depressing enough."

Bob, the flaws in this movie are not "Creative Writing 101". It's the result of last minute post-production re-edits and reshoots. Why they were done I am not sure. While I do feel that the movie was flawed I did still enjoy the movie very much. The story structure was not a "mess". That's just hyperbole on your stubborn part.

The biggest flaw in this movie is with Dr. Connors. His mental state is not clearly laid out which is why for some his plan as the Lizard seems to come out of nowhere. Also, some scenes do feel truncated as there isn't always a consistent flow with the movie.

This whole thing about Uncle Ben's killer not being resolved is nonsense. That's just those that expect the storyline to be played out exactly like the original issues where Parker finds the killer. Since it doesn't happen here they think it's "unresolved".

The whole thing about with Mr. Ratha supposedly "vanishing" is being blown out of proportion. Since it was known that other scenes with him were shot but cut out people act as if his involvement is unresolved. What's unresolved about it? He was a mouthpiece for Osborn and then threatened to test the serum out in a hospital but the Lizard stopped him. He clearly didn't die because Spider-Man saved him when the Lizard threw his car over.

Really I love how you repeating your same arguments as if they are facts despite receiving a good amount of opposition about it. It's ironic you argue that Parker doesn't grow up in this movie yet here you are still acting like a child despite in numerous posts being flat out corrected on your mistakes about this movie (e.g. suggesting Captain Stacy was ripped from Twilight when he's actually based off on his Ultimate universe version).

xaszatm said...


To be perfectly fair, what else could he write about this week? He already stated he wasn't going to write about the Letterman controversy on Batman. He is kinda out of material until The Dark Knight Rises hits next week.

Also, I disagree about your statement on Uncle Ben's killer and Mr. Ratha. Uncle Ben's killer isn't resolved, it's just dropped. Sure, it's dropped after the scene with Captain Stacy, but I always thought that Spiderman had the Lizard to worry about immediately after. In the end cut scene, the killer's picture is still up there in front. I doesn't seem like he has let go of his revenge. Of course, that's just my opinion.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

It isn't a lack of news to write on but just a lack of Bob trying. There are many other topics he could've written about. He could've wrote some thoughts and opinions about the early announcements that Warners is planning on a DC Cinematic Universe to compete with Marvel's. After all, Comic Con is this weekend and Warner's is supposedly premiering their Man Of Steel teaser there.

I never said anything about Ben's killer being "resolved" in this movie. You misread me. I actually commented to Bob when he posted his second video "review" about it:

"No talking to makes Parker decide to broaden his scope. The Lizard is what does it and the theme is tied with Uncle Ben's death. Parker feels responsible for his Uncle's death just like he feels responsible for the The Lizard. He even tells Gwen that he feels obligated to do something about The Lizard. Yet you claim otherwise."

Anonymous said...

Hey Bob,

Could you clue me in on what the "Fingers Crossed" thing is referencing? I'm usually at least fairly pop-culture-savvy, but I'm drawing a total blank here.

Anonymous said...


Devin Faraci runs one of the best sites around. I've noticed your always bashing him, making out like he's Hitler or something. What exactly has the man done to upset you dude?

Anonymous said...

"Fingers crossed" means "I'm hoping this will turn out okay even though the odds are against it".

Anonymous said...

@ Two anons above

If I had to guess, it's because that site gave a bad review to The Amazing Spider-Man. AmazinglyDisappointed seems to have drunk a whole trough of the Kool-Aid. He's not acting rationally when it comes to this movie and honestly, it's starting to approach James territory in obsession.

Look: Bob panned the movie. His reasons for not liking it are pretty sound and have been reaffirmed by plenty of other people. Maybe he wasn't entirely professional in his pre-release journalism, maybe he let production details slant his viewpoints, maybe he didn't give it a very fair chance, maybe he blew up over what seems like just another mediocre cash-grab, but you know what? Regardless whether or not he's "in the wrong", he's not going to reverse his stance from people repeating the same shit over and over again. He didn't with Metroid: Other M, he didn't with Mass Effect 3, and he won't here. Just move on and spare us. Please.

Lord Slithor said...

Like I said in the last post, I wonder how Bob's reacting to the latest news that Fox appears to be moving forward with their own reboot of the Fantastic Four movies after all? They got Josh Trank to direct, and Bob loved Chronicle. So he's got to be really conflicted now, since, just like TASM, the new FF movie is going to be made to satisfy Fox's bottom line and keep Marvel/Disney from getting the rights back. Also, does this mean we've got to endure another two years of him bitching, culminating in yet another prejudiced review?

Anonymous said...

> "Could you clue me in on what the 'Fingers Crossed' thing is referencing? I'm usually at least fairly pop-culture-savvy, but I'm drawing a total blank here."

It was a picture of the Ouya (pronounced "Oh Yeah"). It's an indie, open-sourced, android-based, $99 video game console that exploded on KickStarter a few days ago.

Bob wrote more about it here on his other blog:

Anonymous said...

@ Lord Slithor

You know how he panned the shit out of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, then just gave an exasperated "fuck it" with Transformers: Dark of the Moon? I think that's what will happen there.

Joe said...

@Lord Slithor:

X-Men: First Class was Fox's first crack at "rebooting" a superhero franchise mainly to retain the movie rights, and Bob loved it. Probably because it was actually a good movie. So I expect Bob's take on the Fantastic Four reboot will largely be based on whether it's any good.

Anonymous said...

Are you going to review Savages? I'm not particularly interested in it but a review would probably be more entertaining than one of a kid's movie.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

@Lord Slithor You bring up an interesting point because remember what Bob wrote about TAS:

"'The Amazing Spider-Man' (which I still haven't seen) isn't a movie, it's a contract-law manuever - the purpose of its existance is to help Sony hold on to a lucrative brand in the short-term while they figure out how to hold on to it for the long-term."

That's literally the same situation as Fox with Fantastic Four and Daredevil. I predict he isn't going to attack the Fantastic Four reboots at all especially considering he hates the first two movies. Also he is never going to mention how those movies fall into very similar situations as Sony and Spider-Man. In fact it's actually worse in the case of Fox. Sony's main motivation for holding the Spider-Man movie rights is because they were (and probably still are) going bankrupt. Bob purposely never mentioned that or conveniently was ignorant of it. He makes it seem that Sony are evil but the interesting thing about that is that if they are so evil then why did Sony sell the TV rights and merchandising rights back to Marvel? It's impossible that Bob doesn't know that. So why doesn't he mention it?

Indeed, Fox should fall into all the negative comments Bob has made against Sony because unlike Sony Fox isn't in any kind of financial trouble yet they are still trying to hold on to the movie rights of Fantastic Four, Daredevil and X-Men. Why doesn't he attack Fox? Because it was Sam Raimi made those Spider-Man films.

You see Bob is just mad that Sam Raimi couldn't keep making Spider-Man films because Bob loves cheesy movies. That's his thing. Everything should be cheesy in Bob's world. He even wrote an entire article actually suggesting that a Mortal Kombat movie should be purposely cheesy and never take itself seriously. Huh? An entire franchise built on a dark and violent mythology and he wants it to be cheesy? It's because Bob gets off on that. When Sony announced Spider-Man would be rebooted Bob was angry that he wasn't going to get cheesy Spider-Man anymore. Just think about all the forced criticisms he's made like accusing it of ripping off of Nolan's Batman movies or that Spider-Man should not act the way he does in the comics because it wouldn't work. It was all because Bob just didn't want his Raimi cheese-fest to end and since the plug was pulled on it he attacked in any way he could.

I wouldn't even be surprised if the man secretly loved Spider-Man 3.

Sylocat said...


Even assuming, for a moment, that any of what you said is true, that still doesn't explain why you are so worked up about this. So he dislikes a movie for what you perceive to be invalid reasons. Gosh, how horrible that must be for you. Why don't you do the non-James thing and get over it already?

Also, since you have said multiple times that you would stop reading this site because of this, why are you still here?

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

"Even assuming, for a moment, that any of what you said is true"

It is true. Bob's post after this (Last Word on "Spider-Man") includes a point #5 where he basically goes on to write more or less what I predicated here. Difference is he is being dishonest again. He is again choosing not to mention Sony's financial troubles which was the motivation for deciding to keep the Spider-Man movie rights unlike Fox who just chooses to keep them just to keep them.

And I never said anything about me stopping on reading this site. I wrote that I probably wouldn't be commenting anymore apart from this Spider-Man issue and I believe I only wrote that once.

Sylocat said...

Speaking of choosing not to address points...