[Just your average movie goer]

I loved the new reasons, Madam Corvax. And yes, I did wonder about the lack of chivalry... having the men riding, while a princess was walking.

And Jordan, please stop posting your unwelcome comments here. I'm trying not to get mad. But can't you see this is a discussion between people who are actually interested in the films?

If you hate them altogether, start a new thread and bash them there... but don't interrupt our own conversation with your anti-Lord of the Rings movie rants.

I didn't mean to make anyone mad. I just don't like LOTR and the threat was so broad that I figured I could post my opinions on it. If it was labeled LOTR appreciation, then I would not have posted ranting reviews.

Okay. Then consider this as "Lord of the Rings appreciation" then.

Thank you. Bye.

[civilian_number_two]

[/QUOTE]JUST sat through 3 hours of the RETURN OF THE KING. Best movie! The battle scene was brilliant, the acting was great, and the shots of landscapes were breath taking.
I m sad now, no more LOTR : (
Damn you Jackson! why could you not break the 3 books into 10 movies!

[QUOTE]

That's Jordan from not long ago.

http://www.chefelf.c...topic=195&st=45

Now he says he fell asleep during the film. Hard to say whether he was being sarcastic back in the day (I think not), but in those days he also said that Colin Ferrel would have made a better Aragorn, and he wanted actual "little people" instead of the actors they used for the hobbits.

Now he's favourably comparing BRAVEHEART and GLADIATOR, two of the most embarrassing Best Picture picks of the last twenty years (along with about nine others).

Suffice to say he's not a fan.

[Just your average movie goer]

That is brilliant, Civlian! I take my hat off to you. I still remember his other comments about the fighting choreography.

He wanted something a little bit more like an "Aero Flynn" movie. Pardon my ignorance, but who the hell is Aero Flynn? Is he related to Errol or something?

It was somewhere on this Movie Forum but I can't remember where.

Now he's favourably comparing BRAVEHEART and GLADIATOR, two of the most embarrassing Best Picture picks of the last twenty years (along with about nine others).

THANK YOU. It is good to know that there are other men out there who don't believe Braveheart is the greatest thing around.

[Madam Corvax]

Ok guys, irrespective of the fact, whether Jordan likes ROTK or fell asleep watching it, I’m still going to post my reasons, knowing that at least two people enjoy reading them, which is quite an achievement for me.

I would like to concentrate in this post on military aspect of TTT, since Jordan started about fighting scenes. Thus my reasons will not be chronological, but I hope you don’t mind.

General remark about sword fighting. JYAMG is absolutely right about fighting with a broadsword – it is more similar to whacking the other guy with a club. And I think the cast did get first-rate training in sword-fighting. My favourite scene in TTT is the one with Eowyn and Aragorn, when they cross swords, and I was sooooo disappointed when she just put the sword away, rather than go on sparring. No wonder the scene made to the trailer, it was really cool. Sadly, it’s the only bit of action Eowyn gets in TTT

So, off we go:

19. The Siege Technique
The Helm’s Deep is about to be besieged, and we get a poignant scene where Rohirrm take every lad and old man to fight and give them swords, while locking women and children in caves. Eowyn is to mind them, and in EE she even protests about it, although rather weakly. Now, I am not trained very much in military techniques, but I read one or two historical books, and one thing I know about sieges is that what you DO NOT need during the initial stage is a lot of guys with swords. A fortified castle with proper equipment needs only a couple of hundreds people do defend, because there is a limited space on the walls. And swords are pretty useless at the beginning. What you need is a lot of hot water and oil to pour down the heads of attackers and special tools to unhook the ladders. If “women of this country learnt long ago … those without swords can die upon them” they should have been employed in preparing water and oil, rather than uselessly sit in a cave. They had no chance whatsoever to live, should the Helm’s Deep fall, so the only logical solution would be to fight. What was the point of dragging them to Helm’s Deep, other than to show some grubby children in slow-motion to build up dramatic tension?

20. Women and Children continued
To follow the last reason, at one point, when Helm’s Deep is about to fall, Aragorn asks if there is another way out of the caves. The reply is yes, there is, so Aragorn orders women and children to be taken there. And we neither see not hear about that again. How come that the editor left this particular bit of a pointless dialogue? The scene was filmed, because Eowyn was supposed to fight with an orc during the escape. If they killed the scene with the orc, they should have got rid of the dialogue preparing for this scene, too. I call that bad editing for a B-grade film.

21. The Next Alliance after the Last
I know the why Elves appeared in Helm’s Deep, although it quite a departure from the books and the Last Alliance just cannot be the last if there was another one to follow. The reason behind is simple – because it is COOL to have Elves in Helm’s Deep. Philippa Boyens in EE commentary said that everyone in the theatre cheered when elves entered the keep. Wow. I am impressed. It is as cool as Legolas doing the standard trick with a surfing board and stairs.
So, the Elves are here, just right on time, a minute before the fighting starts, led by Haldir. Now, can anyone tell me, who were these Elves and how did they manage to get to Helm’s Deep just on time? It took four days of slow march to get to Helm’s Deep from Edoras. So, nobody knew there will be a fight in Helm’s Deep before that. Let’s assume that the Elves somehow learnt that there is going to be a fight in Helm’s Deep the minute Theoden decided to go there (how did they learnt it – simply, magic, remember?) So the Elves had four days to gather the soldiers, prepare and march. Now, it took five days of RUNNING to get from the borders of Lorien to Fangorn Forest, and I think the distance to Helm’s Deep cannot be less. If we assume the Elves were from Lorien, still it is physically impossible for them to be there within four days, and be ready to fight. Besides, Haldir brings greetings from ELROND, not Galadriel. So, are these Elves from Lorien or Rivendell? Rivendell is even less plausible, if we consider the above calculation.
Oh, I know I am just nitpicking, but Tolkien cared about the details like that – phases of the moon, and physical possibility of gathering intelligence and distance a man can cover during one day. The Elves of Helm’s Deep is such a blatant example of defiance of physics. The suspension of disbelief is too much for me here.

22. Elves as Cannon Fodder
Tell me, did any of the Elves survive the siege? I tried to look closely at people who fled to the inside castle, and I could not see any. Does it mean that all were killed? We saw Haldir die, but the rest? There were a couple of hundreds of them, and I find it hard to believe they all get killed, yet it seems so. To me it is sad and a terrible waste. Elves are immortal – they value their lives highly. Is it possible that they would want to get involved in a fight like that, where there is a high possibility to get killed, because the enemy outnumbers you by 10 to 1?

To be continued…

[Vwing]

However, I hope that as you grow and mature, you will come to realise that The Fellowship of the Ring is one of the greatest films ever made.

Ok hold up for a moment. What? Listen, of the last 5 years, fine, but of all time? Hell, even of the 90s I'd disagree with. Could you please back this up?

And JYAMG, cool down a bit, this isn't a LOTR appreciation thread. Know how I know? Because apparently the thread is now "reasons why TTT is not nearly as good as FOTR," not to mention the fact that we all seem to be putting down ROTK. So apparently, it's become a FOTR appreciation thread. Did you ever think that maybe these reasons are making me feel bad because I really liked TTT? None of Jordan's comments were unwelcome. He made one post saying he hated the LOTR pictures, nothing really attacking you btw, which is fine, we did the same thing to Mike Mac in his Temple of Doom thread and you didn't seem to have a problem with that, in which the comments made were much worse than anything Jordan's said, and then responded to your post. He then, after you asked him to stop (with some rude comments btw) politely said he would, this out of respect for your appreciation of the movies, and even AFTER that, you continued insulting him. So really, I know you love LOTR (well, FOTR and TTT:EE anyway), but please don't take anything someone says against the movies personally.

This post has been edited by Vwing: 13 August 2004 - 09:14 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

Sorry Vwing.... but let's just have a look at this again. I'd like to respond to this new unwelcome post.

QUOTE (Just your average movie goer @ Aug 12 2004, 10:38 AM)
However, I hope that as you grow and mature, you will come to realise that The Fellowship of the Ring is one of the greatest films ever made. 


Ok hold up for a moment. What? Listen, of the last 5 years, fine, but of all time? Hell, even of the 90s I'd disagree with. Could you please back this up?

Hmmm... okay, let's see....

Far more story than most movies out there- a lot more happens. You have some of the most spectacular set pieces. A really powerful story. Strong, well-realised characters, played by really fine actors. It takes an imaginary world and makes it feel as real as our own. It actually takes you on a proper journey - you finish up a long way from where you started (which so many films fail to do). It was a one of the most moving cinematic experiences I've had. The cinematography was first-class. The score was incredible....

Okay, I'll stop there. Why don't you tell us what you think the greatest films of all time are, Vwing? As you obviously seem to know more about this than me.

we did the same thing to Mike Mac in his Temple of Doom thread and you didn't seem to have a problem with that, in which the comments made were much worse than anything Jordan's said

Read it again, mate. That was MY Temple of Doom thread and it had the subheading "Grill a Movie". Mike knew what it was all about when he entered it. He knew what he was going in for - and he got it. I know it, he knows it.

after you asked him to stop (with some rude comments btw)

I was rude, was I? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Jordan was quite the little innocent, wasn't he? He just wanted to express a different opinion and mean Movie Goer picked on him.

Well, pardon me. Madam Corvax and myself were having a nice, civilised discussion about these movies that we are very interested in... and then suddenly Jordan butts in and says "I've never liked LOTR much. FOTR was as boring as shit."

We're not interested. If Jordan thinks they are shit, then why would he come near this thread? It just seems like being a jerk to me. That was NO different from those idiots from the Force.net who occasionally were rude to everyone in the Star Wars forum.

this isn't a LOTR appreciation thread. Know how I know? Because apparently the thread is now "reasons why TTT is not nearly as good as FOTR," not to mention the fact that we all seem to be putting down ROTK. So apparently, it's become a FOTR appreciation thread.

But if you read the posts, Vwing, you should have realised that the whole idea of this thread was that we were disappointed by the movies that followed The Fellowship of the Ring because we loved that film so much.

And as for what I said earlier to Jordan -

QUOTE 
I didn't mean to make anyone mad. I just don't like LOTR and the threat was so broad that I figured I could post my opinions on it. If it was labeled LOTR appreciation, then I would not have posted ranting reviews. 



Okay. Then consider this as "Lord of the Rings appreciation" then.

That's pretty much self-explanatory. I'm telling Jordan in fairly simple terms to bugger off. He can make a thread about how much he hates Lord of the Rings and post his rants there. This thread is not for him.

As for you, being someone who loved The Two Towers, why don't you respond to the criticisms. We're intelligent people. And we can discuss these things. Not once did anyone make an unintelligent broad comment about The Two Towers such as "The Two Towers is boring as shit."

When Jordan made his stupid comments here, he was being a jerk. Now I'm a nice guy... but I have a very low tolerance for jerks. If you act like a jerk, then I WILL tell you.. every time.

Comprende?


Anyway, I am calming down now. I don't know why you'd rush to the defence of the person at fault in this incident though but I will try not to take his comments so personally. However, what I said above still stands.



____________________________________________________________________


Okay, back to civilised discussion with civilised people. My apologies, Madam Corvax, for this disturbance of the peace. Okay, back to your points....

My favourite scene in TTT is the one with Eowyn and Aragorn, when they cross swords, and I was sooooo disappointed when she just put the sword away, rather than go on sparring.

Here, I have to say I disagree. It wasn't "as boring as shit" or anything like that. I just had a particular problem with the scene - and I shall now elaborate why to explain my point of view.

I do not know if it is necessary or not to explicitly say Eowyn had been brought up knowing how to fight. It seemed clear enough when the wargs attacked the Rohan refugees and she said "I can fight." However, my problem with the scene is something else - a short piece of dialogue, transcribed directly from the book...

"I fear neither pain nor death."

Why would I have a problem with this, you may wonder? It is because of the true nature of courage and heroism. Courage is doing something, even though you are afraid to it. It is the conquest of fear.

The absence of fear is ignorance... and sometimes, stupidity. In my childhood, I did not know fear either. If I did not have adults to keep me in check, this lack of fear could have quite possibly got me killed.

For example, when I was nine years old and I paddled hundreds of metres out to sea on my board to surf some fifteen foot waves swept up by a cyclone. My father told me not to do that again... at least until I was a few years older.

My father also surfed that day but there was a fundamental difference between us. He knew what the dangers were. I didn't. My nine year old mind did not comprehend that I could very possibly die if something went wrong.

And this is the absence of fear.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, one of the most powerful themes of the movie is the conquest of fear.

Now, when Eowyn says "I fear neither pain nor death.", it in no way undermines this theme. However, it does undermine her character. It makes her come across as an inexperienced youth who does not know of what she speaks.

If you'd like an analogy, it basically makes her as naive as Luke Skywalker was when he was still a farm boy on Tatooine.



As for the rest of your points, Madam Corvax, I agree with all of them. I especially didn't like the use of the elves as cannon fodder. In both editions of the film, you do not see any elves after the Urak-hai break into the keep.

So I believe these elves must have all been slaughtered. A terrible waste - and also, a far-fetched possibility. Assuming that most elves handle themselves as well in a fight as Legolas, I cannot see how all those elves could have been killed.

[Jordan]

Can't I change my opinion? I thought it was good then hated it. I always thought it was too long. And the final battles were not captivating.

Gladiator and Braveheart had good action, I was not talking about story line.


And you if you two don't like it then go fuck yourself.

[civilian_number_two]

I have to get in on this with a huge post, since I love jabbering, and since like everyone here I have a secret crush on Madam Corvax.

For those willing to open a second window and look at the source postings, I will be replying to the points by number. To those unwilling to do that, well you were probably going to gloss over the whole message anyway, right?

1. I don't perceive this as a problem. A character in a movie may refer to a thing previously unestablished, so long as that reference does not confuse or distract. What's so confusing about an obscure food item? I didn't get all taken out of the movie when Walter referred ot the IN and Out Burger in THE BIG LEBOWSKI. If you start looking for these "backstory references" in every film you watch from now on, you'll see a lot of them in well-written stuff.

2. Yes. However the first and third films are as guilty of this bombast. This isn't altogether uncommon. I might have preferred had the entie film maintained a Shakespearean cadence, but of course it would have been impossible to do without expecting a few people to get pissed off. If you need no classify this in some way, maybe the guy's making a pop culture reference for his own world, like in our own when someone all out of the blue says something all profound like "the evil that men do lives long after them," and his buddy says "fuckin A to that, bubba." The lines sound like they come from different sources, and the reason is because they do.

3 - 4. Yes. This is the opposite of what they did with point 2. They made the thing juvenile in places.

5. No way. the Ents are necessary, and anyone who brings up some rubbish like "They cut Tom Bombadil" has to see the error of that. Tom = no plot point resolved; Ents = destruction of Isengard.

6 - 7. Yes yes yes. FOTR is a beautiful film. I agree that Hobbiton, Gondor, and every beautifuly-shot patch of New Zealand countryside are like postcards from an actual living other world. The Argonath collosi are like something out of Sidney Sime, but we do not slow down long enough to enjoy them. In TTT and ROTK this is tripled in effect with excessive colour tinting.

8. I agree the Nazgul are not as scary in later films, but they're not as scary in the later books, either.

9 - 10. Every now and then I won't reply to one of your points because I neither agree nor disagree strongly enough to make it worth doing.

11. Some complaints need to be directed at Tolkien and not at Jackson.

12. This business is meant to develop Eowyn, who wasn't much in the books and was significantly fleshed out - with good reason, and to good effect - in the movie. Also, nice to know something about the folks we're going to spend an entire film watching. less about them and more about the main characters has the effect of not grounding the conflict. This is the error Lucas commited in STAR WARS (every single film). Jackson and co did better than that.

13. Yes! WTF?

14. We need him to be a villain, so Jackson goes all over-the-top with him. This is a weakness of his. I quote myself:

"I might as well admit that I'm not that big on the morality on Tolkien to begin with - too much of a lazy good/evil dichotomy, and it's surprising to see stuff like intrinsically villainous races in the work of a good mass-going Catholic. Give me Steerpike over Sauron any day. But at least Tolkien keeps Sauron offstage, and the orcs and trolls are used more as nightmarish threat than as actual characters, so it doesn't matter too much.

The films exacerbate these problems. Galadriel's temptation would be be far more chilling without the shrieking bombast Jackson assults us with; for one thing, the dialogue might be comprehensible. Christopher Lee's Saruman seemed spliced in from a George Lucas movie. In the book he's obscenely arrogant, but he's also a charmer, and his decision to work with Sauron had a lopsided ends-and-means logic to it. Whereas in the movie its "Fuck it, we're doomed, let's act really really evil." (Dialogue Peter jackson, c. 2001) A pity, too, to lose the multi-coloured robe as the first sign of his treachery.

Gollum is as close as we come to a villain with character. We know his motivation, poor thing, as an ordinary joe captured by the all-consuming ring and corrupted into a shadow of whoever he used to be; bent on seeking it out by weakened too by long torture and the pain of not having it, and as much by the need to keep his word, as the vestige of his former self plays against him. To kill a character such as this, as you say, by having him dance his way off a cliff, is weak and shortsighted. Had Gollum acquired the ring and dashed himself on the rock with it, that would have strengthened his character and been the tue resolution of good over evil as Tolkien apparently envisioned it.

Jackson again makes worse the cprruption of the ring , with his cgi manipulation of Bilbo in the Shire, his instant corruption of Isildur (a moment that screamed for dialogue reduced to a stupid backward glance), and the complete character change and narrative aside he gave to Faramir in TTT.

My biggest complaint with Jackson as a filmmaker is in his over-the-top approach to villainy, his over-frantic pace and near-constant camera movement. This is common in his work and in BAD TASTE it works just fine, but it's a problem in HEAVENLY CREATURES, and it's a problem here. The result is a frantic, darker take on a story that frankly contained a load of beauty and a great deal of poetry..."

You can find it, in context and with its typos intact, here:

http://www.chefelf.c...=steerpike&st=0



More to follow.

[civilian_number_two]

15. The best way to protect the women and the children IS to take them to where the fighting will be. This has been the historical use of keeps, castles and walled towns since the days they were invented. The premise is that the fighting will end, and the besieged will survive. What would you suggest? Hole all the men up in a keep and leave the women where, I wonder? Out on the plains to have their brains dashed on the rocks? In the alternate scenario, where the siege is successful, everyone dies. But in the happy scenario, the men live, and don't have to come out to find that all their women have been taken captive and their children have been slaughtered.

19. Yes. I was very disappointed by the siege. Here we had an opportunity to do something that has never been done, to portray a realistic medieval siege. Gandalf makes a big deal out of how the defenders need to hold out for a few days and then we see events that may have taken a single night. It's nonsense. I wanted to see units moving in formations, some tactical advances and fall-backs, some clever and cynical watses of masses of attackers to achieve advances on the walls. These tactics are well-documented in history and would have been more intersting in this high-budget film than all the flashbacks to Arwen and the stupid moments where we were supposed to think Aragorn was dead. And yes, Osgiliath. Granted, Tolkien spent about twenty pages on the entire siege, but that doesn't mean Jackson had to turn it into a cartoon. I think this is one of those areas that deserved a lot of fleshing out.

20. This line is supposed to instill the idea that Aragorn thinks they might fail. we don't need any follow-up to a question like that; it's enough to know that Aragorn is worried.

21 - 22. Yes. All use of elves = bad idea. In fact, it's the reliance on men that is the turn of the tide for Tolkien's world. The elves are leaving, the Dwarves are already gone. This suden turning up is so Saturday morning kid's show crap.

[Just your average movie goer]

And you if you two don't like it then go fuck yourself. 

Yeah, that'll win you friends, Jordan, you jerk.... sorry, Vwing, was that rude?
____________________________________________________________________

I have to get in on this with a huge post, since I love jabbering, and since like everyone here I have a secret crush on Madam Corvax.

Yeah, don't we all? The name, her Polish mystique...

It's good to see you on the thread, Civilian. You're one forum user I'm always glad to see.

I generally agree with what you said. But I'd just like to quickly reply to one thing you mentioned.

5. No way. the Ents are necessary, and anyone who brings up some rubbish like "They cut Tom Bombadil" has to see the error of that. Tom = no plot point resolved; Ents = destruction of Isengard.

The Ents were essential to the plot, that is true. However, we don't have to like them. Their scenes in the movie were often far too tedious. And I had a problem with the fact that they provide what is essentially supernatural aid to the good guys, making things easier for them.

It shouldn't be easy. If everything is too easy for the good guys, you get... well..

Return of the Jedi.

And where does that get you?

However, that said, watching them destroy Isengard is a pretty amazing experience*... and I can put up with them for the sake of this.

I'd just like to remind you of my alternative idea for the fall of Isengard, which was to have the Rohirrim take it after the battle of Helm's Deep, to finish Saruman off...

... but like you so rightly said, I would never be able to get that past the Tolkien purists.


* Well, it used to be. But one time, I was watching it with a friend of mine. And when Saruman came out on his balcony to see what was going on, my friend shouted out "Hey you damn kids! Get out of my yard!"

Now I cannot watch that scene without hearing that line in my head.

[Just your average movie goer]

15. The best way to protect the women and the children IS to take them to where the fighting will be. This has been the historical use of keeps, castles and walled towns since the days they were invented. The premise is that the fighting will end, and the besieged will survive. What would you suggest? Hole all the men up in a keep and leave the women where, I wonder? Out on the plains to have their brains dashed on the rocks? In the alternate scenario, where the siege is successful, everyone dies. But in the happy scenario, the men live, and don't have to come out to find that all their women have been taken captive and their children have been slaughtered.

It's funny, I thought like that originally too... you are right of course... perhaps I'm under Madam Corvax's spell and so am quick to agree with everything she says.

But then again, Madam Corvax comes across as a very lovely lady who never tells me to "go fuck myself". It is nice to be able to talk to intelligent people in a civilised manner. And with Madam Corvax, I can do this. You too, of course, Civilian.

Anyway, very good point.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 13 August 2004 - 11:21 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Now I will reply to Moviegoer's comments, although I have no crush on him. In fact I will crush him! he is my mortal enemy! Garrrr!

Arwen: of course we all agree. Less Arwen = better movie. I do not agree that Arwen is not a believable love interest. I'm supposed to accept that Aragorn and Arwen have known one another for a while now, and that he and Eowyn just met. Add that in the films Arwen is goofy-looking and Eowyn is a fox.

Faramir: I like the notion that there is a man who can resist the ring, even if only briefly. He did it in the book; he wasn't even all that curious. Does this show that he should be king of Rohan? YES! In fact, it does! Maybe that was Tolkien's point, who knows? Boromir = favoured but weak, Faramir = unfavoured buut strong. Who cares? Stick to the source! besides, more of Frodo collapsing and getting all doe-eyed about his burden just about made me want to get up and take a twenty-minute shit break the first time I saw it. Enough, already!

Ents: you're insane. You can't cut the Ents; they are the heart and soul of the whole Tolkien movement. Apart from having John Rhys-Davies deliver some abyssmal dialogue here and there, the Ent treatment was pretty much faithful and frankly necessary. Who's to make the comment on clearcutting and industry if not the Ents? And who kills all the Orcs in Isengard and the woods outside helm's Deep if not the Ents and their buddies?

Saruman: We saw him fall; enough is enough. I'm glad we didn't follow him to the shire to have Grima but a knife in his neck, and I am glad we didn;t get some tacked-on invented demise.

Shelob: We've been over this in another thread, which I am tempted to cite here. To sum up, had Shelob been used in the second film, then Gollum would have been absent from the third. Absent that is until the very end. Gollum is the only voice we ever get to associate with the villainy of Sauron and the corruption of the ring. I think a brief disappearncae was all we needed. Add to which, without Gollum and Shelob, Sam and Frodo have precious little to do in the third film as well. Then what? It's all about the battle of Pellenor Fields? I did not have the impression that the third film was rushed. Like a lot of people, I thought the time in TTT was mismanaged, but I really llike ROTK, and I will like it more when it is done. It's well-known that the theatrical cut was rushed; true patriots will see that as a wide-release test screening. The real show will follow.

Jordan: Jesus, moviegoer, you don't need to get so worked up. He was actually agreeing with a lot of the folk here. I happen to think he's not much of a Tolkien fan, and I like to pick on him for that, but there's a way to do it. Asking a guy not to post in a thread is about the worst way you can disagree with someone on the internet. that sort of post should be reserved for serious arguments (like wehn I asked Anniemate to leave a discussion on religion when all she would post was "stop talking about religion! it makes me unhappy!").

------------------

To Jordan: please don't ask me to fuck off. That's not cool, man.

[Jordan]

To Jordan: please don't ask me to fuck off. That's not cool, man.

Sorry, that was a bit harsh. You did not deserve it.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 13 August 2004 - 11:43 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

Ah, you're online at the same time... so I guess we might sort this out quickly.

Jordan... can you understand why your comments pissed me off?

[Just your average movie goer]

He was actually agreeing with a lot of the folk here.

I'm sorry, Civilian. I don't have time for such enlightened comments as 'fuck yourself' and 'boring as shit'.

This forum is the only internet forum of which I am a member. The only reason why I thought I'd give this one a shot was that it didn't seem to have any of those vulgar "Go fuck yourself" people that seem to dominate every other forum on the internet.

Asking a guy not to post in a thread is about the worst way you can disagree with someone on the internet.

Maybe true. But it's a hell of a lot more polite than "go fuck yourself". How old are you, Jordan? 22? Around my age?

Your comments sound like an obnoxious fourteen year old going through his rebellion phase.

If you have anything to say for yourself that may win you back some respect, say it now.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 13 August 2004 - 11:53 AM