Jump to content

Orion

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Orion

  • Rank
    DeathSpider Embryo
  • Birthday 05/06/1983

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    U.S.
  1. Damn Norrisites... look up the Bill Brasky skits on SNL from 1996-1998. And if you appreciate The Octagon check out Gymkata
  2. TL: I figured I'd post my response from the GI JOE thread in here since it's where it belongs. I responded to what you said because his "typical" opinion about the movie mirrored my own and I felt it should be defended. The quote from Jane didn't say anything I disagreed with or contradict anything I have said except for how I felt about the film itself.
  3. As for the pics of the G.I. Joe cast. I liked the Snake Eyes costume (especially the helmet) until I realized that he's wearing a latex body suit designed to look like real skin. Why would he need that? Just put him in the full-body armor. Sans mouth definately. And I think what TB was meaning about Quaid looking stiff was that he looks like someone put him in a goofy halloween costume and told him to "look cool" for some pictures. He looks like he doesn't feel right posing for it. The rest wouldn't be too bad if they didn't look so new. So I'm hoping that for the film they age the wardrobe and get some wear and tear into them.
  4. Eagles of Death Metal: Whorehoppin', Poor Doggie, I Only Want You, Flames Go Higher, Stuck in The Metal.
  5. Well I picked up #5 today, so I'll post my thoughts on what I've seen. One thing that struck me in my first read-through was page five frame 3. The convict almost looks anguished there, but it's not contextually appropriate. Perfect picture of emotion though. The rest of the issue (and the others before it) he keeps a straight edged composure. The way the convict carries himself and interacts makes me think of Clint Eastwood's Stranger if he landed on another world. Very much a sci-fi cowboy. Good use of the Australian to represent the "every man" of Earth. Not dumb, but obviously not as capable as he thinks he is. And thank you for having a woman in the story without her being a "romantic interest". I'm anxious to see how you guys will handle the Convict's deathwish. Let him die killing the spiders, make him face life without a home for the sake of our world, or something else I haven't thought of yet...
  6. I agree with TB that he hasn't crossed over to a real sociopath. If he was then innocents wouldn't be a concern. A sociopath is compltetely self-centered. Frank has to be disconnected in order to fulfill his work. But that doesn't make him psychotic. He even sees his own evil in a sense. Fully aware that he is on the verge of completely snapping. The dreams he has show that. I'm marking Ennis's work here of course, but that is the most human Frank I have seen to date. Mentioning the skull on his shirt in the cover you posted; I have a Skull T-Shirt that is more prominent than the one that picture has, so I can definetely see the need for something larger. Especially considering it's purpose as a symbol to draw attention. As for eating, well, I haven't read any of the new War Journal run past it's Civil War tie-in. They portrayed Frank a little too dumb in those issues for my taste. But in Ennis's story lines Frank keeps himself in prime shape at all times. Though I don't know what circumstances that cover finds him in.
  7. The Mist is one of the few King adaptations I've seen without reading the book. One thing that King does in all his horror stories that carried over very well was focusing on the human element. The realism and prismatic response of all the characters. What I liked most in Jane's character was his obvious disinterest in taking charge. He only became a leader when it was obvious no one else was capable, and to protect his son. In most horror films there is an immediate "alpha" character that takes control and leads throughout the story. While we all knew it would be Jane because of the initial focus, he wasn't particularly skilled at the job or even interested in having it. I thought the ending was something a mainstream movie couldn't have had 10 years ago, the test screenings wouldn't have accepted it. As for "getting" the ending, I don't think that is really the case. Some people like certain movies, some don't. Some people are more likely to bash them online, some aren't. I had alot of problems with the Punsiher, none of them had to do with Jane's performance as Frank. But just because you don't like one film doesn't mean you can't like another.
  8. TL: I am not offended by the idea of him making a statement. If that is how it came across then let me clarify. If he decides to make a statement then fine. But the idea that not making a statement is somehow letting down his fans is what bothers me. It's the expectation that he owes an explanation to the public, especially at this early stage of the litigation. When I said he shouldn't make one I was speaking on a legal standpoint. It would probably be a bad idea. Neither of the instances you mentioned involved ongoing legal matters. The consequences were PR, not legal. Were either Mickey or Harrison sued? No, because what they said was opinion and not slander. No lawyers needed. Apples and oranges in that case, but I will still address it. I don't expect him to ask permission from anyone. But since it would be (again) a BAD IDEA to do so, I figured I'd at least give a few reasons why he might not since at least 3 people in this conversation were demanding he talk to them about a very personal matter. IF he makes a statement it will be because he wants to, not because he owes it to us. Tiara: Yes that is your opinion, but don't be surprised when someone gives their own about something you had to say. When I post on here I fully expect any responses I might get. It's the nature of any forum. No I don't pay your bills and have no expectation that you will stop making your opinions known. But that will not stop me from disagreeing either. As for closing school on his birthday I assume that was a comment on me thinking he is some kind of hero or saint. I could probably only name about 1/2 a dozen of his films, i've only read the Bad Planet series so far (that I found out about on here), and this is the first forum that even remotely involves him I've ever been on. No hero, no saint, just a normal guy who happens to have a pretty cool job. Truth be told I found this forum while checking out TB's myspace profile for Punisher covers. I didn't even know about RAW until then. I didn't like the Punisher film, Deep Blue Sea was a predictable horror movie with sharks instead of monsters, Dreamcatcher had a horrible ending change from the book, and I've never even considered seeing The Sweetest Thing. Stander and The Mist are the only ones I've liked. But none of that has anything to do with this conversation. I just felt that I should make it clear that yes, I expect kids to be in school on his birthday as well. Fred: You were right, the only part of the post meant for you was the one about the plea. Sorry if I've been long winded lately.
  9. Honestly, pleading not guilty is also used to buy time to figure things out. It doesn't mean you won't change the plea later, but extends the trial to allow the lawyer to work things out between his client and the D.A. Pleading guilty is a game over. If they want to talk things over, make a deal to avoid jail time in exchange for community service, pleading not guilty (especially in a crowded court system) is the best way to make sure you have time to do that. So he is pleading not guilty to all charges, doesn't mean he isn't guilty of one or some of them. Doesn't mean he is. Maybe his license WASN'T suspended. Maybe the suspension was over but it was stuck in the system. Long shot I know, but I've had friends with weirder legal problems. Remember what I said about my insurance card? Ticket for lack of insurance when I had a perfectly good policy. There are a few different reasons to plead not guilty and not all of them brand him as an asshole. As for demanding he make a statement: PLEASE LET THAT PART GO! He won't (hopefully) and shouldn't make any statement right now. He doesn't owe the fans shit! He has made films and comics, promoted them, and otherwise kept himself out of the spotlight. He has been making the movies and comics he wants to make. You watch them and read them because you like them. Service provided! He doesn't milk you for "fame money". His name isn't on a fucking perfume bottle just so you will buy liquid stupid. On the Bad Planet comics is his name bigger than Steve Niles? Is his photo on the cover saying I MADE THIS BUY IT!? And the covers he has been on aren't even for his comics. He does it cuz it's fun for him! HE ENJOYS IT! And because he can! That doesn't mean he owes us anything just because we fork over cash for the things we ALSO LIKE! In the cult of celebrity he's one of the heretics. And THAT, more than his films or comics, is why I like seeing him succeed. Tiara: Yes he probably screwed up somewhere in all this. But the portents of Doom you prophecized on behalf of the Celebrity Cult, like a tabloid editor making a wish list, are a little much. He is far from the first actor to have legal problems, he will have the same problems with his kid most people do no matter what his history, and anyone who throws a fit about a Medium episode with drunk drivers will get a generic response (if any) from everyone involved because no one cares. Besides, you really think the writers are stupid? And an NBC add? I'm just gonna leave that alone or I will offend someone. Yes this was an emotional response and this time I have no apology on my mind to give.
  10. Not intending to start up the conversation again, just responding to the last post. Tom Jane shouldn't post anything about the case on here, and most likely won't, because it is an ongoing matter. His lawyer and any lawyer would tell him not to talk about it, especially on a world-wide medium.
  11. That's one point I was hoping someone would make. Whether Jane should or should not "stand up for himself" on here is really a pointless argument. He has made his presence here very small to begin with, something I doubt any of us are unaware of. He's obviously busy with the film, his wife, and legal issues I'm sure you are familiar with. When you are under litigation the first thing a lawyer tells you is to NOT TALK ABOUT IT. As far as "starstruck" officers ignoring his suspended license; I drove with an expired license for a year, was pulled over several times for speeding as well as just for driving through a small town late at night. Then, the next year I had expired tags for a full year and was pulled over a couple times. During neither of these periods was I ticketed for anything. I was always let off with a warning. And this was during trips across country at times. As you can imagine I'm not a celebrity of any sort so I doubt the officers let me off because they recognized me. When I first started driving I was stopped doing 20 over the speed limit and still only had my temporary insurance card. He gave me the speeding ticket but accepted the proof of insurance. Less than a month later another cop stopped me because I was a high school kid driving during school hours (I had last period free). He gave me a ticket for not having proper insurance even though I showed him my temporary one that was perfectly vaild. The point is; just because one or two officers don't nail you on something, doesn't mean the 3rd that did was right. As for owning up to your mistakes, TL: How many bar fights did you own up to before you finally stopped? Does admitting your mistakes and taking the punishment given always work? Have you ever known anyone that didn't get caught but stopped what they were doing anyway? I'm not saying he's innocent, hell he very likely isn't. Who knows? Not me and I'll admit that right now. TL, Fred: If he doesn't get convicted are you going to stop liking his work? Do you expect that to be a part of his decision either way? That 2 people he doesn't know that like his movies won't want to work with him any more? If he's found guilty and really did drive drunk, will that determine how you feel about his films and comics from now on? Because if that's the case then you should probably give up on him now because he has already plead not guilty but you have already decided that he is. So either he "gets away with it" or it's proven he drove drunk and tried to get away with it. Personally it won't change things for me either way. He's not a friend of mine and my opinion about him won't change how he lives his life. But I would like to see this forum get back to talking about OTHER SHIT. I apologize for any emotional words I've used. I hope I haven't insulted anyone while trying to make my points.
  12. Antonio, I was wondering if you ever had any luck getting the issues of Bad Planet.
  13. I don't expect them to transplant the comics to the movies exactly, never have. But I can always hope for a little better treatment of the characters. In some ways it's like getting a new writer for the comics themselves. They have their own ideas for how things should be done and that doesn't always end up very well. Something I wouldn't mind seeing (not anytime soon though I'm sure) is comics brought to the screen in the way Preacher is (was?) going to be done. 1 hour per issue, then for the big crossover storylines lead each series up into a film that handles the climax of the story. Preacher probably won't have a film, and despite what was originally said about keeping it strict to the comics they are now talking about adding episodes. But a guy can dream right?
  14. But that's just the thing, the Blob has no place in the Mutant Massacre and Beak had nothing to do with Weapon X. That's what I meant by random, characters that have no reason to be in the story they are in when there are plenty of other characters that do. I understand why Stryker was in the second film, they were using elements from God Loves Man Kills. But he didn't need to be involved in the Weapon X program, that was just so they could continue to make Wolverine the focus of the movie, which should have been saved for this upcoming one. I'm glad Sabretooth will be throughout the film, he should be stalking wolverine and taunting him constantly. But they could easily save the Mutant Massacre for a film involving it's real villain, Sinister. That could also coincide with Madelyne Prior if they decide NOT to have killed Cyclops, which is still a possibilty. The X-Men have a rich history of stories that have nothing to do with Wolverine. Let him have his own movie, like they did in the comics, and give the other characters some respect too. When I was a kid Logan was my favorite hero and Creed my favorite villain. But they have turned him into Marvel's Superman, which takes away what made him so cool in the first place. He was a tough loner that did his own thing and didn't need or want the spotlight.
  15. Looking at the characters on the cast list...The Blob? Beak? It really doesn't need random characters they couldn't fit into the first 3 movies. Beak is pointless no matter how you look at it and the Blob shoud have been in the first X-Men film. not the spin-off. Happy about Schreiber as Creed and Reynolds as Deadpool though. As long as they finally do Sabretooth justice and give Reynolds some decent dialogue to work with. It would be kinda cool to let him break the 4th wall in his chatter.
×
×
  • Create New...