|
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT

You are a sad, pathetic creature if you really believe that.
No, the reason you see it so often is because you make an absolute arse of yourself as often as you do. You make claims that are absurd, and genuinely try very, very hard to come off as if you understand things you clearly don't.
It has nothing to do with "who looks better or worse", and has everything to do with the things you say in the posts you make. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edit: And if you need any "evidence" of the above claims, may I suggest you "scroll up" and read your own replies to this very thread?
That should serve quite well. |
It's interesting to see how you get more personal every time I disagree with you. As if it were sufficient to repeat the statement "NO! You're stupid, shut up!" often enough to make it true.
*turns to all people except RJT*
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
primer |
I've heard so many good things about that one, but also some people who say it's confusing and doesn't make any sense. I shall watch it as soon as possible.
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
Obviousely you can have elements of different genres combined very efficiently. My point is; a movie like children of men may have sci-fi elements, but they're not the focus of the film, they only serve as a setting. The movie is written mainly as a drama, so that's how I perceived it. The Matrix is an example of a movie I would consider pure sci-fi, because the plot of the movie simply cannot work in any other setting. The sci-fi elements in The Matrix are central and absolutely vital to the story. |
I haven't seen Children of Men, but I agree with what you're saying. Not every movie that contains futuristic science or some scenario is a true science fiction film. Time travel, as in "Back to the future" for example, is a common device in various movies, that are not mainly SF, but more something else.
|