@notarobot Don't know if it is bad grammar or not. If you change the second "that" to "the" it reads okay. So I think you grammared okay.

It is bad writing though. Ha.

Maybe he has, maybe not, why does it matter?

You can criticise something without being able to create it. I've never written a book, but I can tell bad writing.

And you have entirely missed the point.
It's not that all movies should be great, but they should at least try. If you continually aspire to mediocrity, then an avalanche of mediocrity is what you get.

def. fan made. wrong voices, bad writing/acting/timing, used all existing footage.

Or maybe you're just afraid to hear the truth?

My work's been viewed by millions of people, to generally good reviews. The projects I worked on often take criticism for bad writing, but I had no hand in that end of things.

Also, you might want to open up your dictionary and look up words before you start using them.

Ant-Man and Giant-Man would be cool.. Aren't they the same guy ?
Skipping the origins and missing Hank Pym is kinda lame.

But none of that could save this film from bad writing and bad acting, which is why this trailer sucks hard.

I haven't read the books or seen the movie, so I'm kinda confused. Is Tom Cruises character *supposed* to be a misogynistic asshole or is it just bad writing?

Nice of the others to follow the "form an orderly queue and attack one at a time" trope.

In defence of grammer nazis:
Good gramar, punctuation and spelling are, in my opinion, social nicities, that make reading what you have to say, easier for the reader. just like you dont have to hold door's for people comming in after you, you dont have to right corectly four people to understand what your saying. But its generaly a good thing too do because It makes peoples live's easier.

I do some times have too reread things because off gramatical errors or just bad writing but its usually not to bad but some times i couldnt be bothered rereading things because of gramatical errors so I stop which kind-of decreases you're reason for writing it in the first plaice if you wanted people to read it and thats not even taking in to account times when people write thing that you have to read like technical documentations that are a strugle to read and re-read because the person writing it doesnt no how to write good or doesnt care!!!!

Butt I dew love the coment a bout knowing were two stick ze apostophe.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^kceaton1:

I'll still see this as it's a Bruce Willis movie and he seems to have an O.K. streak; he hasn't ever really made/been-in a dud, similar to Harrison Ford on that front. Plus Joseph Levitt to boot, should be alright.

Air Force One?

cough Hudson Hawk cough Armageddon cough


While both those films are fairly bad, they are FAR more watchable than the true dregs of movies that have been made by people such as Uwe Boll or M. Night Shyamalan--when M.N.S. made a good show, followed by a decent one, and then proceeded to believe that he made the best films man had ever bear witness to. Plus we both know that there was an audience (and a large one for Armageddon) for BOTH of those movies and also Air Force One, @Payback; sure, they weren't me and you (or @Payback), but there are a lot of people in this world that do not ask very much from their movies.

It's when a movie lets down EVEN THEM that it is a pure and utter failure, able to be ridiculed without equal until the end of time. These are the worst films made. Of course many of the movies that DO succeed, like Prometheus right now (June 2012--for reference), can be made fun of A LOT (like Armageddon, which has been the punchline to many jokes). Why? Because, they have MASSIVE disconnects from reality or other bad writing and screenplay mechanics that they are just ridiculous when thought about with any amount of real thought and prowess in a subject dealing with the movie and it's attempt to portray reality in another light that is utterly false. As I said they appeal to the "entertainment" type audience; someone that would go see Independence Day over and over again. Not to us were we watch someone take off a helmet in a potential zero atmosphere environment "to test it out"; that is UTTER NONSENSE, no one does this in reality! This is the stuff that makes us hate those movies (and create the myriad of jokes for it as well). But, not the entertainment crowd who can enjoy a movie for what it is and suspend their connection with reality for awhile.

Granted if I were to use my "full-on" reviewing analysis of what I would include as good movies--the count of "alright" movies would plummet (for Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis). I can think of atleast 3-4 shows that Bruce has been in that I would consider failures in this light, but I know that many people beyond me DO like these movies--that is why I don't count them as failures as there remains an audience--a decently sized one--for those movies. I have to admit I have my own "cult" movie favorites that no-one likes, really, except for me and maybe a few other people I know. I also have been able to like movies for their entertainment value although I know if I treat them with reality they fall completely apart, quickly. Sometimes it's best to let your imagination rule your heart.

Same thing here. I'm just not on the end of the spectrum that enjoys those movies, if you get my drift. So, trust me, I know Bruce has his bad movies (same with Harrison Ford)--but his bad movies, so far, are better than the real dregs and bottom scraped-up leftovers that are out there. That is what I was trying to say in a lot less context--I hope this clears it up. We most likely see things fairly close or the same; I'm just giving credit to the people that DO like Hudson Hawk, Armageddon, and Air Force One.

I prefer the age of the characters in the TV production. I doubt there could be any substantial "historical accuracy" reasoning behind graphic sexual descriptions involving 11 and 13 year olds. Oh, and there is some bad writing in the first book at least (as far as I have come). I kind of miss the grandeur in the book though.

>> ^RadHazG:

I finished it! Ultimately I think I'll blame this one on some bad writing but an even worse trailer-maker person whatever that person is called. Editing, music selection, etc were all crap. The story is vaguely interesting, but presented so badly it kills any interest immediately. Whatever the reason, the trailer at least is torture.


Yeah I'm giving it a shot...this is a trailer not the episode ya bunch of losers.

I finished it! Ultimately I think I'll blame this one on some bad writing but an even worse trailer-maker person whatever that person is called. Editing, music selection, etc were all crap. The story is vaguely interesting, but presented so badly it kills any interest immediately. Whatever the reason, the trailer at least is torture.

NetRunner,

There is little doubt in my mind you will not read what I have posted, as it is a 598 page intellectual monster; but I have looked at the 11 page FAQ you linked, and not even past the first section I have had to stomach conjecture.

I do not know what reading is like for you, but when an author makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, it is really hard for me to get through it. This is the same reason it is hard for me to ever finish reading the bible. Every time I sit down and try, I am left with more questions than I began with because bold claims are constantly made, yet never explained. How can you stand to read Kangas with a critical mind when he raises more questions than he answers?

The opening section of Kangas' FAQ is "What is liberalism?" Yet after only 4 short paragraphs I was left with more than five times as many questions as the section attempted to answer.

1. "...commercial crimes like fraud, copyright infringement, insider trading, breach of contract, price gouging, etc. Without these laws, the market would function either poorly or not at all."
2. "if we did not have copyright laws discouraging people from pirating all their software, computer programmers could not even make a profit, and would have no incentive to produce."
3. "Yet another function of government is to defend the free market -- for example, with police and military forces."
4. "A dramatic example is Eisenhower's Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the creation of over 40,000 miles of interstate highway. These highways interconnected, accelerated and expanded the U.S. economy, with profound results."
5. "Much of this infrastructure was too huge and expensive to be funded by private companies, and languished undeveloped until the public sector stepped in."

These statements only raise questions, they do not explain anything. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with them, but if a uneducated reader came across it they would either have to take them on faith, or be riddled with questions: Why does the market perform poorly without those laws? Why can't programmers make a profit without copyright? Why does the government defend the free market? How did the highways accelerate the economy? Why couldn't private companies fund this infrastructure?

Moreso, they have nothing to do with answering the question "what is liberalism?" If you listed those five claims and asked a person to guess what the author was trying to support, would anyone guess "the definition of liberalism?" Why did he even include these assertions when they do not support the heading; and how is that not intellectually frustrating to you? Its not just conjecture, its bad writing.

I do not enjoy nonfiction which requires faith, because the claims are so intellectually impotent they do not arouse in me any desire to see what the author has to say next. I can force myself through the 11 pages of 10th-grade-level writing from an online pundit such as Kangas, but why should I when the question has already been forcefully answered almost 82 years ago in 224 pages of masterful prose by a genius in the field?

I mean, here are both authors answering the same question:
http://mises.org/liberal/isec1.asp
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/ShortFAQ.htm#liberalism

Just compare the force of writing for yourself.

>> ^budzos:
I FUCKING HATE the type of writing in the dialogue at the end of the trailer.


You mean bad writing? Norton didn't help much with that wooden acting either.

>> ^JAPR:
Besides that, this isn't so much a case of bad writing as it is the problem all dubs have: trying to come up with something that somewhat fits the mouth movements of the characters who were meant to be speaking another language. This results in things not really being a direct translation, and often ends up sounding really stupid. I would rather they just sub the cutscenes in English; they'd save money on paying voice actors to do shitty jobs at crappy semi-translated lines.


>> ^JAPR:
Also, I'm pretty sure that price tag referred to the original price of developing the game in Japan, not how much they spent on the US port.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBHIgh3MEJU

Here's that scene in Japanese. Like I said, it's still ridiculous, but not quite as bad.

VII was amazing, never played VIII or beyond, other than Tactics, which I also loved. IV and VI are favorites as well.

Oh, Dirge of Cerberus was really awesome, too. I played it in Japanese, though. I heard the English dub was terrible.

A little look at a longer video of the context and a video of that portion in the original Japanese shows that the laughing was supposed to be purposefully ridiculous, but the way it's done in the English version comes off less ridiculous and more pathetic.

Besides that, this isn't so much a case of bad writing as it is the problem all dubs have: trying to come up with something that somewhat fits the mouth movements of the characters who were meant to be speaking another language. This results in things not really being a direct translation, and often ends up sounding really stupid. I would rather they just sub the cutscenes in English; they'd save money on paying voice actors to do shitty jobs at crappy semi-translated lines.