Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 1000 post(s) from this thread on one page

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   Media Centre (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Clerks 2! ...they still don't like you. (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6570)

McCloud Jun 18, 2006 03:29 PM
Damn, so happy this isn't coinciding with "muthafuckin' SANKES!!" anymore. I mean, sure, I would have likely chosen this, but all my friends were aiming for SoaP, so it would have been a little less enjoyable without them. And I can't believe the celebrities in this! Not complaining, but wow. Earl and Randy? I love My Name is Earl, so I rofl'd. Jason Lee kicks ass. There was also that one black lady with the weird voice, and that guy who looked somewhat Tarantino-ish. I think he was on ALIAS. Oh well. It still looks to be pretty good, maybe a little less serious than the original, closer in comparison to Mallrats. Either way, I'm happy.

EDIT: And holee shit, I've been an idiot this whole time. I never knew that Jason Lee played Brody in Mallrats. Damn, how could I miss that?

Marco Jun 18, 2006 03:35 PM
Wtf it's not black and white?

From the trailers, I have a feeling it won't be as good as number 1.

Wojo Jun 18, 2006 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gukarma
From the trailers, I have a feeling it won't be as good as number 1.
Well really that goes for all sequels. The second movie is almost always not as good as the first. Still that doesn't mean it'll be bad by any means.

joshi Jun 19, 2006 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gukarma
Wtf it's not black and white?

From the trailers, I have a feeling it won't be as good as number 1.
why would they film it in black and white if they can afford to do it in color? that doesn't make any sense at all.
the only reason Clerks was even in black and white was because Kevin, Mosier, and Dave didn't want to worry about color temperature and lighting in an already cramped environment.

acid Jun 19, 2006 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshi
why would they film it in black and white if they can afford to do it in color? that doesn't make any sense at all.
the only reason Clerks was even in black and white was because Kevin, Mosier, and Dave didn't want to worry about color temperature and lighting in an already cramped environment.
Some people feel that by adding color is loses the "feeling" of the original.

Ofcourse some people are idiots.

SketchTheArtist Jun 19, 2006 10:29 AM
THREE NEW CLIPS from the movie!

They are friggin' hilarious and just shows about Smith never lost his touch for good dialogue!

http://ropeofsilicon.com/features/20...rks2/index.php

ENJOY!

Vestin Jun 21, 2006 11:00 PM
Oh, classic shit here. I would definitely go see this movie, were it not for the fact that there has never been a good sequel to a movie. Ever.

EVER.

SketchTheArtist Jun 21, 2006 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
Oh, classic shit here. I would definitely go see this movie, were it not for the fact that there has never been a good sequel to a movie. Ever.

EVER.
- Aliens
- Die Hard 3
- Empire Strikes Back
- Robocop 2
- The Devil's Rejects
- And many more...

It's an opinion matter but the quality of those sequels can't be denied.

Vestin Jun 22, 2006 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SketchTheArtist
- Aliens
- Die Hard 3
- Empire Strikes Back
- Robocop 2
- The Devil's Rejects
- And many more...

It's an opinion matter but the quality of those sequels can't be denied.
The Empire Strikes back doesn't count, that was meant to be a trilogy, so it really doesn't count as a sequel.

The others... yeah, that's definitely a matter of opinion. The Devil's Rejects, for example, I thought was a terrible movie.

And also, who said anything about quality? I don't care how good a movie is made and how well it looks. If it sucks (like Devil's Rejects), then it's still worth shit to me.

acid Jun 22, 2006 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
Oh, classic shit here. I would definitely go see this movie, were it not for the fact that there has never been a good sequel to a movie. Ever.

EVER.
The Godfather Part 2 - It won Best Picture for Christ sake.
Toy Story 2
X2
Gremlins 2
Aliens
Dawn of the Dead
Back to the Future 2 (3 was kinda shitty)
Army of Darkness
About 15 Bond Movies
Rocky II
Rocky III
Rocky IV
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (I know it's technically a prequel)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Road Warrior
TERMINATOR 2: Judgement Day

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
The Empire Strikes back doesn't count, that was meant to be a trilogy, so it really doesn't count as a sequel.
While Lucas was did have some of the ideas for Empire in place while making Star Wars (it wasn't ANH until it was rereleased in 1981), it was still then unknown if Empire would ever be made. It wasn't a "planned" Trilogy (ala LOTR), it counts.

Empire Strikes Back

Vestin Jun 22, 2006 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by acid
The Godfather Part 2 - It won Best Picture for Christ sake.
Toy Story 2
X2
Gremlins 2
Aliens
Dawn of the Dead
Back to the Future 2 (3 was kinda shitty)
Army of Darkness
About 15 Bond Movies
Rocky II
Rocky III
Rocky IV
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (I know it's technically a prequel)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Road Warrior
TERMINATOR 2: Judgement Day
Did you prepare all month for someone to knock sequels on a whole? If I wasn't mistaken, it sure seems like you had that list ready. Did you clap once you posted your reply?

Of course I was exaggerating, but I am very weary about sequels on a whole, there have been more bad than good, I must say. Also the thing I really meant to say "the sequel is never as good as the original". I didn't mean to say that all sequels suck. The fault is mine, I suppose.

PS: Very interesting about the Star Wars thing. Didn't know that either.

acid Jun 22, 2006 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
Did you prepare all month for someone to knock sequels on a whole? If I wasn't mistaken, it sure seems like you had that list ready. Did you clap once you posted your reply?

Of course I was exaggerating, but I am very weary about sequels on a whole, there have been more bad than good, I must say. Also the thing I really meant to say "the sequel is never as good as the original". I didn't mean to say that all sequels suck. The fault is mine, I suppose.

PS: Very interesting about the Star Wars thing. Didn't know that either.
No, it took me a few minutes and a look at my DVD collection.

I just know more about movies than you do.

Vestin Jun 22, 2006 09:53 PM
Probably more about anthropology too. No one asked about that either, though.

SketchTheArtist Jun 23, 2006 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
Probably more about anthropology too. No one asked about that either, though.
Oooohhhh, bbuuurrrrrrnnnnnn!!

..no wait, you suck.

Vestin Jun 23, 2006 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SketchTheArtist
Oooohhhh, bbuuurrrrrrnnnnnn!!

..no wait, you suck.
Ooooh, I can tell you're just in a league of your own, aren't you?

Dark Nation Jun 23, 2006 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
I would definitely go see this movie, were it not for the fact that there has never been a good sequel to a movie. Ever.

EVER.
Superman 2
Batman Returns
Spiderman 2
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
And also, who said anything about quality?
You, when you said that there has never been a good sequel ever.
"Good" (From your words) which is a term to denote amount or having instristic elements of quality in this case. It could also mean as opposing to evil or something that is enjoyable.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
I would definitely go see this movie, were it not for the fact that there has never been a good sequel to a movie. Ever.
Quote:
I don't care how good a movie is made and how well it looks.
what



...Getting back to Clerks 2, was there any real reason Kevin Smith dropped the "The Passion of the Clerk" subtitle or was it just easier to say "Clerks 2"? I almost want to see it in color this time, but I also want to see it in B&W like the original. Maybe if it were to pull a Sin City and have only certain elements in the film in color, unimportant stuff like store merchandise or whatever... just to fuck with the audience or something.

knkwzrd Jun 23, 2006 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Nation
2010: The Year We Make Contact
WHOA. This is NOT a good movie to bring up when talking about good sequels.

Vestin Jun 23, 2006 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Nation
2010: The Year We Make Contact
Superman 2
Batman Returns
Spiderman 2
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn


You, when you said that there has never been a good sequel ever.
"Good" (From your words) which is a term to denote amount or having instristic elements of quality in this case. It could also mean as opposing to evil or something that is enjoyable.





what



...Getting back to Clerks 2, was there any real reason Kevin Smith dropped the "The Passion of the Clerk" subtitle or was it just easier to say "Clerks 2"? I almost want to see it in color this time, but I also want to see it in B&W like the original. Maybe if it were to pull a Sin City and have only certain elements in the film in color, unimportant stuff like store merchandise or whatever... just to fuck with the audience or something.
I already went through this with acid, where I retracted my statement and rephrased it.

Just read a little bit more up, shouldn't be that much of a struggle, even for you... yup, right up. Right there. You got it.

Should teach me to watch my every little word, eh?

Dark Nation Jun 23, 2006 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
I already went through this with acid, where I retracted my statement and rephrased it.
You left some things unanswered, specifically the part I said "what" to, Because it still needs some sort of explanation.

Quote:
Just read a little bit more up, shouldn't be that much of a struggle, even for you... yup, right up. Right there. You got it.
If you are referring to you editing your statements (As you said in the first quote in this post), they appear the same as when I quoted them, as I just looked right now.

Otherwise I have no clue what you're trying to infer, please be less vauge.
Quote:
Should teach me to watch my every little word, eh?
Uh... sure?

Quote:
Originally Posted by knkwzrd
WHOA. This is NOT a good movie to bring up when talking about good sequels.
Well, I thought it was good, but strike it from your mental list if you'd like. I will admit it wasn't a superior sequel, but it was a good film nonetheless. Besides, you can't duplicate that kind (in 2001: ASO) of filming technique so easily.

--edit--
Well you're right. I did enjoy the film and it was a good movie but it needs not to be on the list.
I shall strike that out digitally (As opposed to mentally :p )

Vestin Jun 23, 2006 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Nation
You left some things unanswered, specifically the part I said "what" to, Because it still needs some sort of explanation.


If you are referring to you editing your statements (As you said in the first quote in this post), they appear the same as when I quoted them, as I just looked right now.

Otherwise I have no clue what you're trying to infer, please be less vauge.

Uh... sure?
Look what I got myself into now. I didn't quite read your whole post, but here's the main idea: I've never seen a sequel that compared to the original, IN MY OPINION.

Forgive me, for I have sinned.

SketchTheArtist Jun 23, 2006 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Nation
...Getting back to Clerks 2, was there any real reason Kevin Smith dropped the "The Passion of the Clerk" subtitle or was it just easier to say "Clerks 2"? I almost want to see it in color this time, but I also want to see it in B&W like the original. Maybe if it were to pull a Sin City and have only certain elements in the film in color, unimportant stuff like store merchandise or whatever... just to fuck with the audience or something.
Well, Smith decided to do without because, well, it sucked. And he won't do it in B&W because A, he didn't want for the sequel to be the SAME, visually and B, it would cost a whole lot of money to have it transfered in B&W. This is the same reason, he wouldn't do a version, like Sin City, where certain aspects of the movie is in color because it was filmed in 36mm and like I said above, would cost way too much for a movie that had a 5 Million dollars budget. Sin City also was done cheaply but it was filmed in DIGITAL making all of the Post-Production tuning and effect way more easier and cheap.

disgruntled pineapple Jun 23, 2006 12:21 PM
http://content.imagesocket.com/image...tpost37d3f.gif

Dark Nation Jun 23, 2006 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosthetic
but here's the main idea: I've never seen a sequel that compared to the original, IN MY OPINION.
Alright, that's perfectly fine. It was just you were all like "zomg no good sequels EVER. final judgement 4 eternity on this topic!". Then everyone was like
"O RLY?" and you were all "YA RLY" and then they were like "EXAMPLES!"
and you were "DO NOT WANT".

Quote:
Forgive me, for I have sinned.
Well I suggest you locate your nearest spiritual leader or diety for that
inquiry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SketchTheArtist
Well, Smith decided to do without because, well, it sucked.
I thought he did it in B&W because it was cheaper... but I guess not since,

Quote:
And he won't do it in B&W because A, he didn't want for the sequel to be the SAME, visually and B, it would cost a whole lot of money to have it transfered in B&W.
Since apparently it costs MORE to do without color.

SketchTheArtist Jun 23, 2006 03:05 PM
No. What I meant to say with the 'WITHOUT' was about the previous title, Passion of the Clerks.

I know shooting in Black and White is cheaper, but I thought the previous member said something about the fact that it'd cool if there would be a version of the movie where it'd be in B&W and then some objects or parts of the Backgrounds would be in color. THAT would cost a bit more.

Dark Nation Jun 23, 2006 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SketchTheArtist
No. What I meant to say with the 'WITHOUT' was about the previous title, Passion of the Clerks.
Oohh... ok that would make more since since I initally thought that...
Quote:
shooting in Black and White is cheaper
Quote:
but I thought the previous member said something about the fact that it'd cool if there would be a version of the movie where it'd be in B&W and then some objects or parts of the Backgrounds would be in color. THAT would cost a bit more.
Yeah I think I said that (Maybe someone else did too). From what I understand for Sin City's production was that hey filmed it in color, made it digitally B&W (Where some enviroments are just B&W naturally and others have a distinct 'pure' black overlay)and then RE-Colored parts deemed uh... needing color.

I was just saying that it would be a nice effect to have the movie use certain objects or even people in color since he will (?) be shooting Clerks 2 in B&W. If cost is an big issue then I guess not huh? :laugh:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 1000 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.