Pierre the Great Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I failed math, does that mean he thinks 3 is the best? I'm confused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I failed math, does that mean he thinks 3 is the best? I'm confused So, you failed 2nd grade math? Because that's when they teach the greater than and less than signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 So, you failed 2nd grade math? Because that's when they teach the greater than and less than signs. Well I never understood it, I couldn't get it then can't get it now. According to the State of Missouri I'm dumb anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 No wonder you got votes for worst GM. Ha....ha....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Ha....ha....? Yeah, it was meant as a joke. Was implying anyone who thinks either of the sequals was better than the first certainly must not be able to run a team. It was meant as a joke at your rating of the movies, not at your GMing skills. I have no beef with your GMing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Considering I didn't win a majority in that contest makes me happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Yeah, it was meant as a joke. Was implying anyone who thinks either of the sequals was better than the first certainly must not be able to run a team. It was meant as a joke at your rating of the movies, not at your GMing skills. I have no beef with your GMing. Bill Nighy > Geoffrey Rush + more screentime and bigger role for Keira = better movie I realize I'm on a deserted island with that opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Well I never understood it, I couldn't get it then can't get it now. According to the State of Missouri I'm dumb anyway. "The alligator eats the bigger number." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I realize I'm on a deserted island with that opinion. I'll agree to the extent that I think they could have been better movies. I think they just tryed too hard to recreate the magic of the first, and the plot was a bit too complex. If I were a kid seeing the movie, I don't think I'd have been able to follow all the side switching and double crossing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I'll agree to the extent that I think they could have been better movies. I think they just tryed too hard to recreate the magic of the first, and the plot was a bit too complex. If I were a kid seeing the movie, I don't think I'd have been able to follow all the side switching and double crossing. This is somewhat irrelevant but in all honesty, the 3rd movie didn't really seem like it was for kids anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 This is somewhat irrelevant but in all honesty, the 3rd movie didn't really seem like it was for kids anyway. True, but I'm talking 13-14 year olds, 7th and 8th graders. I'm a bright person, and there were times when I even had to think a bit to figure out who was on which side, who was really working together, who was working together for subterfuge, etc. I think it took away from the fun of the movie, though the third one was hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 That seems to be only the knock people have against it though which really isn't that bad when you look at other movie of this stature. I personally had zero problems following which is why I probably like it a lot more then others but I will admit I can see how others might have problems. It kept me guessing though and I liked that, it was like being on a roller coaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I think one thing that keeps me from saying the third is as good as the first is that it is so directly tied to the second, which I think was well below the other two. It probably didn't help that I expected so much out of it, especially after liking Spiderman 2 better than the first one. I will say that At World's end was good enough to make me eventually want both the second and third DVDs, probably for Christmas of something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I don't think any serious argument can be made that the order isn't 1>>>3>>>2. The first one is incredible, funny, new, great action scenes, fast-paced, a solid storyline, Keira Knightley, Johnny Depp deserved the Oscar for his performance in that one. The 2nd one had a more forced Depp, less plot with more action, it was darker, less funny and lacked the whole Jack Sparrow feel to it. It was good but nowhere close t othe other two. Featured some classic action scenes. The 3rd one had some awesome scenes with some meh scenes mixed in between. I didn't really find it funny thogh lots of parts were supposed to be funny (which is a bad sign). Jack still wasn't at his best like he was in CotBP but his character was still brilliant as was the entire plotline with all the back-stabbings, deals, bargains, exchanging of leevrage and double-crossings. I was able to follow the plot throughout the whole movie so I loved it. The final hour is one of the greatest action sceenes I can remember. The first scene where the hanged men start singing was also genius. So what's the knock? Some parts were a bit slow (the scene where we meet Jack) and some parts were a bit kiddy-ish, though the 1st movie had that too. I don't really like all the monsters that are in the latest two movies. They seem maybe a bit overdone? Anyways, teh first one was instantly my favourite movie when I first saw it and none of the newer two gave me that feeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I don't think any serious argument can be made that the order is 1>>>3>>>2. Um, don't you mean that no serious argument can be made that the order isn't 1>>>3>>>2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Um, don't you mean that no serious argument can be made that the order isn't 1>>>3>>>2? Just testin' ya! Someone's gotta keep ya on your toes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Well thats stupid. Taste in movies is the same as taste in music. Theres no set standard as to whats good and whats bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Well thats stupid. Taste in movies is the same as taste in music. Theres no set standard as to whats good and whats bad. People have different tastes, for sure. But some movies/music are/is better than other movies/music and that's a fact. So if we made a HW band with you, me, Faerie and PTG, assuming we're all average Joes with no musical talent and we started singing, it would be stupid to say we are worse than, say U2? Because music is all subjective? There might be one person out of 1000 who prefers us to U2 but no matter what that guy thinks, U2 is still the better and more talented band. Same for movies. A movie like Citizen Kane is better than Big Momma's House. Did I like Citizen Kane? No, I found it boring. But is leaps and bounds ahead of BMH and probably the average movie as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 It would be stupid because whether something like that is good or bad IS subjective. Any form of media whether it be movie, music or video games can not be stated good or bad and have it as a fact. Some things can have larger fanbases then others but it's not set in stone that something is better then others for every single person in the world. You can't look at me and say I'm outright wrong for thinking Pirates 3 is better then Pirates 1, it's not a math equation. You can disagree with my opinion though. It's the same reason the general population will tell you they never read reviews of CDs or movies. I know someone who's favorite movie is Resident Evil while it's my most disliked movie. He's not wrong for thinking that because it's all about what you're looking for. I was looking for something that would stay true to the franchise, he was looking for a generic zombie flick. He found what he was looking for, I didn't. Same goes for Pirates 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_faerie87 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 People have different tastes, for sure. But some movies/music are/is better than other movies/music and that's a fact. So if we made a HW band with you, me, Faerie and PTG, assuming we're all average Joes with no musical talent and we started singing, it would be stupid to say we are worse than, say U2? Because music is all subjective? There might be one person out of 1000 who prefers us to U2 but no matter what that guy thinks, U2 is still the better and more talented band. Same for movies. A movie like Citizen Kane is better than Big Momma's House. Did I like Citizen Kane? No, I found it boring. But is leaps and bounds ahead of BMH and probably the average movie as well. Dude! I have mad musical skillz! B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Sometimes people go see movies just to see a good movie. People might not like a good movie and they might like bad movies but saying that every single movie whether I make it on a shitty camera or whether it gets 5 stars from all newspapers is just as good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Sometimes people go see movies just to see a good movie. People might not like a good movie and they might like bad movies but saying that every single movie whether I make it on a shitty camera or whether it gets 5 stars from all newspapers is just as good... To some people it may be. Hear that sound? It's the sound of what I'm saying going over your head. I also like how people find it necessary to use absolute extremes to prove their point but in that case, yes, there are people's videos on youtube I'd much rather watch then something by Spielberg or Scorcese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 To some people it may be. Hear that sound? It's the sound of what I'm saying going over your head. I also like how people find it necessary to use absolute extremes to prove their point but in that case, yes, there are people's videos on youtube I'd much rather watch then something by Spielberg or Scorcese. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. And I keep saying the same thing over and over again. So there's no point really. By the way, people use extremes because it makes things easier. If you're going to tell me that my singing is worse than a professional singer and than say that I'm dealing with extremes so the example doesn't count, well... your argument isn't making much sense. If you're admitting that pro singers are better than me than you're admitting that there are different levels of musical talent and that even pros can be on different levels. But ah well, I won't listen to what you say anyway, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 You keep saying the same thing over and over again. And I keep saying the same thing over and over again. So there's no point really. By the way, people use extremes because it makes things easier. If you're going to tell me that my singing is worse than a professional singer and than say that I'm dealing with extremes so the example doesn't count, well... your argument isn't making much sense. If you're admitting that pro singers are better than me than you're admitting that there are different levels of musical talent and that even pros can be on different levels. But ah well, I won't listen to what you say anyway, right? *reads rest of post* Haha, apparently not. You somehow infer I used extremes at some point in my argument which I didn't, it would go against the point I'm trying to make. So you're right, my argument wouldn't make much sense. Good thing I didn't do that. *waits for the really poor example* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.