Clash of the titans sucked!

RoadBlocK

RoadBlocK

Well-known member
Clash of the titans sucked!

There I said it.

Im old enough to remember the original as being cool, compared to todays special effects, I guess its campy to most folks, but the old movie had something, the new movie sucks.

Save your freakin money.
 
I wasnt planning on seeing it, it looked like an "Action reel in followed by retardation"
 
Don't they only also have this in 3D so you have to pay the extra money?
I don't understand why they remade it, the original was perfectly good. Why fix what isn't broken?
 
Lol I saw the original in the theater...

Jurassic said:
Don't they only also have this in 3D so you have to pay the extra money?
I don't understand why they remade it, the original was perfectly good. Why fix what isn't broken?
Click to expand...

I think that producers and those that put up the cash feel that remakes of previously 'successful' movies are less risky than a brand new script.

What they don't seem to understand is that there are multiple factors that make a movie successful and many cannot be reproduced.
 
you couldnt tell from the commercials it was going to suck? :banghead:
 
Deeerdre said:
you couldnt tell from the commercials it was going to suck? :banghead:
Click to expand...

Haha, nope, the ones I saw made it look cool, medusa, pegasus, the gods on mount olympus, and the fact that the old one was cool to me, unfortunately what made it suck was the weak ass acting by the lead and most of the cast, if you can even call it that, and the way it was dragged out and emotionless, and prettymuch boring, some real acting talent was wasted in this film and even the special effects were blas'e, hell " percy jackson" had better effects.
 
RoadBlocK said:
Haha, nope, the ones I saw made it look cool, medusa, pegasus, the gods on mount olympus, and the fact that the old one was cool to me, unfortunately what made it suck was the weak ass acting by the lead and most of the cast, if you can even call it that, and the way it was dragged out and emotionless, and prettymuch boring, some real acting talent was wasted in this film and even the special effects were blas'e, hell " percy jackson" had better effects.
Click to expand...

hahah atleast by u seeing it u saved me the wasted time and money:burnout:
 
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with everyone in here; I understand everyone has different opinions and I don't think you should all like it because I liked it (i.e. I don't want to argue about it), but I thought it was good. Also, I saw it in 2D for $7.

The acting was a little weak, but who cares; it's a bunch of mythological beings getting pissed off at each other and killing a bunch of crap. The chick is hot, the dudes are cool, and Zeus is ****ing Liam Neeson. I turned my brain back to 10th-grade-level and really enjoyed it.

If you just watch it as a shiny and action-filled flick, then I think it's pretty good. It has it's flaws, but it didn't suck.

Oh, and I really sincerely appreciated the depiction of the soldiers (and the main character) as mostly medium-sized individuals -- none of the bull**** bodybuilder Spartan mega-men. That gets real old real fast. It didn't really impact my opinion of the movie, but I appreciated the decision.

It's a fun movie; and the characters aren't blue cat people.
 
Yeah everything I've read on this has said it's pretty mediocre. It'll be a Red Box or a download for me. Everything I've heard about the 3D is atrocious as well, and everyone recommends to see it in 2D if you absolutely have to. They didn't actually shoot the movie in 3D (using 3D cameras), they just touched it up afterwards for the effect which generally produces shoddy 3D.
 
They also say that outside of techs who work in the 3d biz you can not truely tell if a movie was converted to 3d or shot in 3d.
 
That's probably true. In this case though, everything I've read about Clash of the Titans says the 3D effects are pretty bad and that you're better off watching it in 2D.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Honestly, just wait till it comes out on DVD. It is action packed, but the movie itself kind of flows like a made for TV movie. Like, first we'll go here, then here, finally we'll end up here, but first let's stop here. I think there's too much going on to fit the entire story in 110 minutes. On top of that, Sam Worthington is going to be THAT guy that will save an entire people from utter destruction. He was alright in Terminator Salvation, pretty good in Avatar, but somehow I feel that his character in Clash of the Titans doesn't fit him. I think they should have chosen someone else, don't know who it would be, but definitely someone else. The CG isn't as good in this one either. The Medusa could have been better. I like James Cameron's CG team in Avatar. That was pretty good.
 
the 3d was ****ing stupid. nothing flying out of the screen so whats the point. that includes avatar if your movie is in 3d at least take advantage of it. instead i just get a headache from wearing the annoying ****ing glasses and the movie is 25% darker than it should be. really worth an extra $6
 
khakiman said:
that includes avatar if your movie is in 3d at least take advantage of it. instead i just get a headache from wearing the annoying ****ing glasses and the movie is 25% darker than it should be. really worth an extra $6
Click to expand...

/agree

At this point 3D is just a gimmick to get people back into theaters (and eventually to buy new TVs). Maybe once the technology improves it might be worth it but right now it is just a nuisance.
 
Well there's "normal" 3D you pay like $12 for and you get those flimsy movie glasses, which looks more like uber HD to me and then there's IMAX 3D for like $20-$25 and they come with those thick plastic glasses that cover your entire face. The quality of dimensional depth is actually quite noticeable from 3D and IMAX 3D, anyway, I was hoping CLASH would be good, sad to hear the review.
 
Nitrox said:
Lol I saw the original in the theater...

I think that producers and those that put up the cash feel that remakes of previously 'successful' movies are less risky than a brand new script.

What they don't seem to understand is that there are multiple factors that make a movie successful and many cannot be reproduced.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right on both counts here. They're pumping out remakes left and right now.

It's just like trying to recast The Goonies! It can't be done!


VolcomX311 said:
Well there's "normal" 3D you pay like $12 for and you get those flimsy movie glasses, which looks more like uber HD to me and then there's IMAX 3D for like $20-$25 and they come with those thick plastic glasses that cover your entire face. The quality of dimensional depth is actually quite noticeable from 3D and IMAX 3D, anyway, I was hoping CLASH would be good, sad to hear the review.
Click to expand...

I saw Avatar in IMAX and I gotta say it was pretty impressive. It was also my first 3-d movie and i'll never see another 3-d not in IMAX3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top