Who's going to see Jason X

[One Winged Angel]

ok I dunno how it goes but...

Somehow he is frozen on a ship
He gets unfrozen and starts killing everyone on the ship
He turns into Super Jason or watever the **** it is...

why would I want to see it?

[BlueFire]

Originally posted by NeonNightCloud
ok I dunno how it goes but...

Somehow he is frozen on a ship
He gets unfrozen and starts killing everyone on the ship
He turns into Super Jason or watever the **** it is...

why would I want to see it?

That pretty sums up the stupid storyline.

[nWoCHRISnWo]

Originally posted by NeonNightCloud
ok I dunno how it goes but...

Somehow he is frozen on a ship
He gets unfrozen and starts killing everyone on the ship
He turns into Super Jason or watever the **** it is...

why would I want to see it?

And I ask you why WOULDN'T you want to see it?

[Perfect Stu]

Originally posted by nWoCHRISnWo


And I ask you why WOULDN'T you want to see it?

probably because he has a brain...

[Cyrax9]

I won't see it, just like I won't see several other movies that have been "milked" to death, unless someone finds a good plot, I won't see a movie unless it's part of a series that I'm extremly interested in.

[GameKinG]

No, such a stupid idea. The industry cant think of newer more exciting movies, so they make a spin-off, of all things, Jason.

My dads working on that movie.

[nWoCHRISnWo]

Originally posted by Perfect Stu


probably because he has a brain...

Since when do movies have to be complex and realistic? Jesus christ, if you wanna learn something go to school. Movies are meant to be entertaining.

[Jonbo298]

Originally posted by Xantar
Ok, I can see I was out of line there although I wish you had just told me what was wrong. I honestly thought it was all in good fun, but maybe I'm being weird in my illness.

In any case, that post will be edited shortly, and I apologize to Jonbo for any hurt feelings.

It's kool. But my friends said that they were gonna go see the movie too so I figured I would go too, plus its only gonna be me wasting $4 to sit on me a$$ and stare at something that might actually be good, but I still think they should've sticked with the classic scenario.

[BigJustinW]

First of all, I must say that I agree with nWoCHRISnWo

Originally posted by Jonbo298
I still think they should've sticked with the classic scenario.

I don't know about all that.

I think that this new format will be cool... the ONLY problem with it is that they are using the name "Jason"

If it was the same scenario as JX is now, just with no Jason, and no real backround on the prisoner who got free in outer space. I think everybody would treat it more nicely. It has the potential to be good no matter what.

[Jonbo298]

Originally posted by BigJustinW
It has the potential to be good no matter what.

Thats the reason I'm gonna see it cuz it might actually good. Even if it isn't, its still something entertaining for me to see.

[fingersman]

Well I hope it's better than the Scropion King, don't get me wrong the movie was ok, but it didn't really have any high points.....it felt like a part of a mini series or something. The Rock's acting was ok.....but the movie itself just lacked something.

[Revival]

Yeah, I'm probably going to go see it.. I'll give it a chance.

Edit: Here's the review of the movie:

"Jason X," the 10th movie in the "Friday the 13th" franchise, is one of those movies that's completely critic-proof: Regardless of what anyone says, slasher-film fans are going to see the movie anyway.

While I wouldn't describe myself as a fan, I enjoyed the wave of horror flicks that started with "Halloween" in 1978, followed by "Friday the 13th" in 1980 and "A Nightmare on Elm Street" in 1981.

The problem with these movies and their many sequels is the feeling of deja vu. How many times can you see a teen or young adult stabbed, slashed, choked, sliced, crushed, impaled or dismembered before it becomes passe?

Realizing their predicament with a series that had long ago run out of steam, the "Friday the 13th" people came up with an imaginative way to juice up the franchise.

The conversation at the pitch meeting must have gone something like this: How about if we transport Jason, the indestructible hockey mask-wearing villain, 450 years into the future? Yeah, and we can have him run amok on a space ship! A space ship filled with hot young scientists who wear belly shirt-style space gear and are every bit as mindless and generic as the victims in the earlier films!

Plus, we can throw in some well-armed space soldiers to provide more action and an even greater body count. Ooh! Then, we'll have Jason fall into a machine that transforms him into a stronger, buffed-up bad guy. He's Jason, Alien, and the Terminator all rolled into one!

The movie is laugh-out-loud funny, sometimes intentionally, usually not. Jason takes so many hits and keeps on coming that he reminds me of the Black Knight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Lose your arms and legs? No problem -- it's just a scratch.

The ad line for "Jason X" reads "Evil gets an upgrade." That part is true. There's plenty of mayhem and action, but it feels empty because they didn't bother to upgrade the plot or develop characters to root for and worry about.

On the positive side, at least this cyborg is no cy-bore. I had low expectations, and "Jason X" exceeded them. I guess you can call that a compliment. --Dave McGuigan

[Xantar]

I guess I just have a completely different approach to movie watching than others (hey, might as well turn this thread into a debate on why we watch movies).

To put it simply, I can't be entertained by dumb movies. Plot holes will distract me unless the movie is really captivating (which sometimes happens). Bad acting will turn me off unless the movie doesn't take itself seriously (as in The Mummy but not in The Mummy Returns. Some parts of the sequel actually tried to be serious). Poorly written dialogue may elicit a laugh from me, but more often than not, it just makes me dislike the movie.

At one point, I was entertained by non-stop action and neat special effects, but not any more. I've seen plenty of violence and good special effects by now. Comedy is a different thing, but good comedies are pretty rare.

My approach to movies now is somewhat akin to (but not exactly like) art. I'm not talking about just sculptures and paintings here. I'm talking about any art including dance, literature, songs and some pieces of architecture. Like any good work of art, a good movie requires skill to be made. Good acting is not easy to do. Neither is good script-writing. Directing a movie is probably the hardest thing of all. When all these things and more are done right, the movie is good, and it withstands the test of time. How many movies can you actually remember from 1992? Or even 1997? We watch an awful lot of movies and forget most of them. There must have been something about Wayne's World, Pinocchio, Aladdin and Fried Green Tomatoes that I remember (I looked at a list of 1992 movies, and those were the only movies that I could remember multiple scenes, the plot and more than two or three lines of dialogue from). They didn't necessarily have great acting (especially in the case of Wayne's World) or even a very deep story (as in Aladdin), but something about them was well done. So I remember them.

Look, I'm not telling anybody to stop going to movies for thrills and entertainment. That's a perfectly good reason to see a movie. I'm not even saying that we should learn from movies or even think very much while watching them. But to say that movies are supposed to be entertaining and nothing else is equivalent to saying that music is only supposed to have catchy tunes and infectious beats.

[BigJustinW]

Well X... you had me convinced until this:

"But to say that movies are supposed to be entertaining and nothing else is equivalent to saying that music is only supposed to have catchy tunes and infectious beats."
-Xantar-

(had to try the CamFu Quoting again )

I think that these are completly different things. Some music doesn't need words to express itself.

What is a Movie, Music, or even Video games? Entertainment. Music, Movies, and Games don't have to make you think as long as they are Entertaining. There are no levels to this.

If music's cacthy tunes and infectious beats are entertaining, the music served it's purpose, Entertainment.

A movie is the same, it can have no story line, and be utterly pointless but still be entertaining. You relize how many porn flicks sell? Or even cartoon movies? It's not about having a "point" people just wacth it to be entertained.

Video games fall into this too. The game voted best game of all time by most sources, Tetris, is one of the most shallow games of all time. But what it does is entertain.

I'm not going to argue with everything else you said, because it's your opinion. But this last line makes it sound like you think entertainment isn't supposed to be the main goal of movies. Even educational movies are entertaining to people who want to learn somthing from them.

Maybe you should change your wording if I misunderstood you

[Xantar]

You misinterpreted my line. All I said is that entertainment shouldn't be the only reason for the existence of movies. I never said anything about what's most important.

I think that these are completly different things. Some music doesn't need words to express itself.

-BigJustinW-

Well, neither do movies. One of the most memorable things from the movies is the sight of E.T. on a bike silhouetted by the moon. We don't remember the dialogue from that moment (because there was none). We don't even remember music. That image from the movie stood all by itself.

As for your Tetris example, I believe you are selling the game short. Sure, it's shallow, and anybody with a decent knowledge of C++ could create it. But honestly, would you have come up with the idea behind that game? Remember especially that back in the day, puzzle games didn't even exist. Maybe it didn't require a lot of skill, but it certainly took some inspiration. That's part of art, too. It takes a lot of technical skill to create a music recording with crystal clear sound and very complicated mixing. Yet there are lots of songs that were very well-engineered and are completely forgotten by now.

Why can't art be entertaining? Why can't entertainment be art? If music has catchy tunes and beats so that it entertains, that's fine. But music is also capable of doing more than that, and the songs that do are generally the ones that are remembered many years later. Consider Michelangelo's Statue of David. It's been analyzed to death. Scholars find all kinds of subtexts in its creation especially because it was apparently groundbreaking in its day (I wouldn't know. I'm not an art major). That's why it's one of the most famous statues in existence. But back in the time when Michelangelo carved it, the Statue of David had only one purpose: to look good. And most people still think it looks good. The best movies, music, books etc. are the same. They can still be enjoyed as entertainment. It's just that there was something extra that made them especially memorable.