If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"

The Meatpuppet Theater Thread



  • You can change. You can.

    Honestly? One thing I really dug about S:TAS is that they made her to be from a neighbouring planet rather than Krypton itself. 

  • I'm pretty excited about this.

  • Has friends besides tanks now
    Just watched District 9. Good shit, bros.

  • Also, 'S' meaning 'hope' sounds kind of...lame. Is that something from the comics, or something made up for this movie?

    According to Wikipedia:

    In 2004, Mark Waid's Superman: Birthright series says the S-Shield is the Kryptonian symbol for "hope" and Superman believes it may have begun as a coat of arms for the House of El. Later, writer Geoff Johns confirmed it was indeed a coat of arms, as well as a symbol for hope.

  • edited 2013-04-22 15:51:03

    So anyway, I recently got a DVD of the first Harry Potter movie, because Little Witch Academia made me want to see it.

    There's a good deal of stuff that feels like foreshadowing now, even for things that didn't really get used in the movies. Percy(?) mentions to the first-year students that their stuff had already been taken to the dorms, and I assume that would have been a vague hint for the Hogwarts House Elves subplot, which isn't actually in the movies. And Ron's wish to be Quidditch captain kinda leads to him joining the team years later, but IIRC that doesn't happen in the movies. Also, did the movies ever mention that Harry's invisibility cloak might have been the cloak from the Deathly Hallows set? IIRC, the book points out that being an invisibility cloak that never loses it's effectiveness makes it even more special, and the Death/Peverell connection might be the reason.

    The short moment when Harry gets his wand felt overly dramatic, but when you consider that it foreshadows the connection he has with Voldemort that gets explored later, it's just perfect.

    Hagrid is really damn incompetent with how many "I shouldn't have told you that" moments he got.

    I think Harry getting a Nimbus 2000 felt like the wish fulfillment angle was getting overplayed, after all the other wonderful things that happened to him.

    Overall, there's a sort of "whimsical" feel for this movie, at least compared to the more serious stuff later on. I remember when I first saw it, it felt like a pretty complete story by itself, and since I didn't know that HP was a book series, I didn't expect a sequel at all. Just another thing to feel dumb about from when I was (much) younger, I guess.

  • You can change. You can.

    So the new Thor trailer came out and the movie looks like it's gonna be fun in a LOTR way.

    so I am kinda looking forward to that.

  • It looks really hype.

  • Monsieur Lazhar was unsurprisingly good.

  • So I hear that Marvel got back Daredevil's movie rights. People on another board are suggesting Matt Murdock just show up when as some character's lawyer in case they can't have him join the Avengers or anything.

  • Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto!

    I think the best way to do it, is have him show up at a trial, have him be maybe a one or two scene wonder, then he can get his own new movie.

    That's exactly what I WISH they would do with She-Hulk :(

  • You can change. You can.

    I am not sure why they couldn't have Matt be an Avenger considering he is an Avenger as well.

    Granted, by now, even racoons are (honorary) avengers, so.

  • I'm a damn twisted person

    Hell at this point, Red Ronin is probably an Avenger. 

  • You can change. You can.

    Guillermo Del Toro is teaming-up with Sherlock and Doctor Who writer Steven




  • There is love everywhere, I already know

    Don't be too happy about that, Steven Thompson wrote the worst Series 7 episode so far *And I think it's the only one he's written this series). It did have the best bit in a very long time involving the Doctor and any companion since the start of the Amy arc but then immediately hit the reset button for reasons I'm not sure about, therefore solidifying my hatred for it. Also every event outside of those few scenes towards the end was pretty terrible.

  • You can change. You can.

    He also wrote the Reichenbach Fall and that was pretty fucking great.

    Also writing Monster is not really the same as writing Doctor Who. 

  • Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto!

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    So I watched Hellboy. It was kind of basic story-wise, but I really liked it.

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    And now I'm watching Tremors. Yeah, it's kind of dumb, and the acting and writing aren't great, but I think the monster concept could lead to some interesting situations and the pacing, at least in the part I've watched so far, is solid.

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    Okay, finished it.

    It didn't really go in the ideal direction for me to enjoy it fully, since it wound up being more of a problem-solving exercise than a real horror movie, but I didn't dislike it either.

  • OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!

    Watched the Babylon 5 pilot. That was really good.

  • You can change. You can.

    It is. I never followed on watching the rest, but that was pretty spiffy

  • edited 2013-05-04 04:35:02

    Has anyone else seen Iron Man 3 yet? I didn't mind that Tony wasn't in the armor for much of the time. He was still Iron Man all the way through, more or less. At least I thought he was.

    Also, word is that Marvel got the Ghost Rider movie rights back. Apparently Sony(?) felt like they didn't need 'em. Marvel Studios can probably build up to a supernatural/paranormal hero team now. Like, Midnight Sons, or whatever they're called.

  • I've seen Iron Man 3. The things I liked about it was nearly eclipsed by the things I didn't like about it, so I'm conflicted. 

    But I understand why they did the things they did, as it may as well have been RDJ's last turn as Iron Man.

  • One foot in front of the other, every day.

    So I (finally) saw The Hobbit. It was good, but indulgent in a lot of ways The Lord of the Rings didn't have the room to be. Ultimately, I think it would have been better for it to just be one three hour movie comprised of the events in the book, without the business with the White Council and other worldbuilding elements. 

    A lot of the more problematic changes (to my mind) are there in the first place because it's been extended into its own trilogy rather than being a simpler adaptation. There's no mistake that The Hobbit is at its best when dealing with the dwarves and Bilbo Baggins, and a lot of the side stuff isn't necessary because of how obviously the existing book content ties into The Lord of the Rings. In addition, a lot of sound effects and musical cues are reused, which I think is an obvious and effective way to tie things together. Those things alone would have brought enough connectivity to the previous trilogy while allowing The Hobbit to also stand alone. One of my concerns in the long term for this production is that will only be optimally consumed in tandem with The Lord of the Rings films, and some of the connections are certainly a bit graceless.

    On a more positive note, everything good about The Hobbit, I think, is most of it. The parts are well-cast and all the returning characters feel exactly as they did last time we saw them. The aesthetic is consistent with The Lord of the Rings while also maintaining its own Hobbity identity, and the more playful nature of the book definitely comes out when dealing with the main characters. While I previously criticised some of the changes, others were obviously made more cleverly. A good example is the troll scene; in the book, it exists to show us exactly how clever Gandalf is, whereas in the film, it's meant to establish Bilbo's resourcefulness. Given that the film is aiming for more of a character arc with Bilbo, that particular change fits nicely.

    So while I'd definitely say there are pacing and adaptation issues, I'd also say that The Hobbit is also a good film on the whole. Not as good as The Fellowship of the Ring was, but then again, The Hobbit began life as a loosely-tethered set of bedtime stories that Tolkien told and then ended up adapting into a novel. It never had, and was never going to have in adaptation, the structural sophistication of The Lord of the Rings. Nor does it have Viggo Mortensen or Sean Bean. Sadface. 

  • I really appreciated that they gave that to Bilbo. They played a dangerous balance of him being annoying and being likable in the first half.

  • You can change. You can.

    I think most of my issues with the hbbit come down too the fact it was overtly busy. Especially once you reach the third act and you have not one but two climaxes.

    And the second one involves around five minutes of Thorin and Azog staring at each other in slo-mo

  • I liked the Goblin King.

    He had a testicle face. 

Sign In or Register to comment.