I liked the Amazing Spider-Man because it felt real real to me. I mean, the characters felt more like actual people and not just a '90s vision of the '90s. I understand that the Peter Parker people expected wasn't the Peter Parker they got, but yeah, duh, it's a fucking reboot. I would have hated it if they'd just made the same previous series with different actors. I love it when a movie takes characters we know and makes them feel more current. That's why I liked Iron Man, I grew up watching the cartoons, where Tony Stark was pretending not to be Iron Man because he feared for the life of whatever, but in the movie he wasn't that character, he was an eccentric rich genius who couldn't help admitting that he was Iron Man. That's what made the Dark Knight series good for me, I really felt like for a guy to be Batman, he would have to be a rich Christian Bale like in the movie. The Amazing Spider-Man had characters that I believed were as they would have to be in reality in order to not kill themselves due to depression.

The Civil War Spider-Man is also good and I love the idea that Stark made him a suit with eyes that move, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that I would like to massage the inside of Aunt May's anal cavity.

Also let me tell you, a Peter Parker who is only capable of making whiny noises every time he opens his mouth, and looks like he's about to cry in pain every time he smiles, would not be dating Mary Jane. It doesn't matter if they were childhood friends, she wouldn't date him because he has no personality.

That's actually the biggest reason I enjoyed ASM: The character portrayals. I would have really liked Andrew Garfield to keep being Spider-Man. The dude was so stoked to play him, I feel bad he was recast. And as usual Emma Stone was nice to watch, but here her chemistry with Garfield was great. So much better than the Peter/MJ relationship in the old movies.

Yeah I'm not sure why so many writers think "brooding" and "edgy" are the only traits a character should have to be good characters. People say The Dark Knight is inspirational but they don't know why it was so good. It might be because they always reduce their inspirations to just one or two traits--dark and gritty, in this case--which is bad because, that way, they're no longer three-dimensional. But they always have a third or fourth trait: color, humor, cleverness, thoughtfulness, etc. The third trait is what gives things like The Dark Knight, Daredevil, and Watchmen so much depth. And one of those traits doesn't even have to be "dark" OR "gritty," which is why Iron Man was so good despite being so lighthearted compared to the Dark Knight: It still had depth.

Edit: I'm OK with the new Aunt May giving me a weird boner. I think Marisa Tomei is in her early 50s and that still doesn't bother me.

Iron mans character arc is my favorite, honestly.

Considering it's started with the whole bomb thing and from there he's slipped further and further down. It's just an appealing thing to me.

I've seen a lot of people say that in the end Captain America was right and the other team was wrong in Civil War. No. Captain America was a terrorist. His guy kicked our helicopter and they blew up our tunnel. Because of this we had to take more money from the European Union. You know what that leads to? Brexit. Tell me America, if you wanted to get away from Britain so bad, how come you can't stay out of British politics? It doesn't make sense. I hope Trump builds a wall high enough to keep Captain America in!

Apparently Hastings is closing all of it's brick and mortar stores in favor of being an online only retailer. It really sucks because I found out by pulling up to the Hastings store I've been going to since I was a kid to see a big "Going out of Business!" banner on the front of the building.

I got a swanky as fuck Predator action figure at a 20% discount though, so that was nice. Now I've got my trio of Hunters after all these years of plotting.


@DW: I hadn't thought about that in that way, but agree fully.

Batman: The killing joke was pretty good, definitely not for kids. Of course, but, at the same time I did really enjoy the dynamic between characters.

@-Bloo-
I'm not saying the "Fun-Feel" is what makes it "bad" per se, so much as I personally feel that the extent to which they use it makes the whole universe feel unrealistic. I don't think 97% of those jokes would be made at all were these 'people' really in these situations. I am aware this is all personal opinion, but my original post was geared towards opinion and trying to figure out why people had a negative opinion towards BvS. To me personally, I like getting involved and emotionally invested, I like to really dive into the universe and care about what's happening, thus making me want a relation with the world I'm imagining. But were there two superheroes actually on Earth the world would not throw parades and parties for them and worship them as celebrities and stars (Spider-Man and Iron Man), no, the government would be afraid of these "things" and try to either capture to study them, or eliminate them as potential threats, whether it be Buffy, Manly, Attractive and Dreamy Life-Saver Superman, or Giant Ugly Dinosaur-Dragon Terror Godzilla. It's an uncanny sight, otherworldly, and much like in the first Batman Begins, unwanted and terrifying, hence the realism that is Batman wanting to eliminate Superman due to not trusting someone of his capabilities running free amoungst innocent humans.

Is it true I'm generally a dark and depressing person that enjoys the grittier things in my entertainment? Yes, I mean, just listen to my band's music. But I can see the difference between what I like and what is quality. There are many a films that I did not like one bit and didn't enjoy in the least but will openly admit "Yeah, it was a fantastic film, I personally just didn't like it." and others that I'll say "Yeah, that movie is absolutely horrendous, but hey, I like it." But when I sit there and think of Batman vs Superman, I'm not saying it's "Flawless" by any means, but must I say is it a "Good Film" in terms of quality? Absolutely I do. And yes, I will admit, I neither enjoy the MCU, nor do I think they are "Great Films" by any sense of the term. Is the production quality good? Well of course, it's funded by Marvel and has the money to do whatever-the-heck-they-please in terms of CGI and could afford to cast every world leader and religious leader all in the same room and pay them to stay peaceful and civil if they so pleased. They could cast Jesus for Pete's sake. So yeah, they're made well, but do I think they are quality films in terms of story, writing, mood, pace, feel, etc etc? No. Especially when I feel I see these films be 70+% Action and maybe 30% Story and Character Development.

Again though, for the most part this is all based on opinion and I respect all others'.

^ I'm gonna respond to this with a big ole' chunk of text, so apologies in advance.

To me, the question of "how would superheros work in the real world?" was definitively answered when Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons did Watchmen 30 years ago: They wouldn't.

Super heroes are completely absurd characters that were originally intended to entertain small children in the Great Depression. That's what they're FOR. Yes, they've changed a lot since then, but fundamentally, the roots of the genre (Superman especially, Good GOD) are in taking kids' minds off of crippling poverty.

It's a fundamentally hopeful genre because it starts with an immigrant nobody landing in a corn field with fuck-all to his name and becoming a hero. Yes, Superman WILL deflect a meteorite and then save a cat from a tree while giving a little kid a speech about standing up to peer pressure, because Superman is a hopeful, cheesy idea that doesn't make any sense if you think about it for more than two seconds... And that's OK.

This whole idea of "realistic" Superman just fundamentally doesn't work, because Superman is a character whose disguise is a pair of glasses. He wears a cape. His house has a giant key. He has a super-dog who also wears a cape, because goddamn, otherwise the other dogs might recognize him!

He shoots laser beams out of his eyes. He can fly. He comes from an alien planet completely unconnected to Earth where the aliens juuuuust happen to look exactly like human beings. He can move at the speed of sound, lift buildings, take a nuke to the face, etc etc etc. He's completely absurd.

Now consider: all the shit in the above paragraph is STILL true of Snyder's supposedly realistic version. Why not go all the way, Zack Snyder? Why can't anyone tell he's Clark Kent? Why doesn't he kill or deafen anyone in the immediate area just by moving at super speed? Why does he look just like a human if he's an alien? Because the second you change all that, he's not Superman any more.

I guess that's my point: BVS is NOT "realistic" in the slightest. I mean, it's got Batman in it. It's a guy dressed like a bat fighting gun-toting criminals every single night hand-to-hand and he's somehow not dead. It's got an immortal Amazon warrior. It's got an energy-shooting rock monster. It's got characters who relate to each other like snotty 6-year olds on the playground. It's bonkers!

But what's it's tone? "HEY MAN. THIS IS SERIOUS SHIT BRAH. YOU BETTER TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. IT'S NOT LIKE THOSE GAY LITTLE COMIC BOOKS, OK? IT'S DARK AND SERIOUS AND ABOUT, LIKE, POLITICS... AND STUFF."

In short, it's up it's own ass. It comes across like a little kid trying to sound grown up by saying "fuck" and talking about how much he likes boobs. It's a superhero movie that's embarrassed to be about superheros. I dunno, that just seems counterproductive to me.

It's not impossible to do a darker, more down-to-Earth tone. Just look at The Dark Knight. The difference is, TDK wasn't an incoherent mess with pointless subplots and cocaine-fueled editing.


OR

tl;dr: People don't hate BVS because it's dark, cynical, or realistic; people hate BVS because it's bad.

TDK was also pretty hopeful about everything despite being everyone's dark and gritty inspiration. Each of the three films was basically about how people are fundamentally good or can become good if you give them the chance to redeem themselves, and how one individual can use his power and influence to selflessly help everyone become better people. It's depressing and realistic in that they demonstrate how you can't help/save everyone (BOY was the Two Face incident a shit show), but it's hopeful in showing that one guy going off the deep end (or an entire city being corrupt) isn't the end for mankind.

Anyway, I love how TDK and Watchmen fully embrace their superhero cores. For all the depressing realism, Watchmen's climax involves a giant psychic octopus and a sad blue man with his dick out for Mars. And it's arguably not even that realistic--how did Nite Owl even making that fucking Owl Ship???--just more human and down to Earth. And serious. These stories are some of the most serious superhero works I've ever seen and they still fully embrace what they are: Superhero stories. I feel like BvS was better about that than Man of Steel was, but overall it's still a bad movie. I enjoyed it a lot from an entertainment standpoint, but lots of people also enjoyed The Room and The Interview for the same reason.

It's not "serious Superman" that makes people angry. Just read Kingdom Come: It's a serious, brooding Superman versus a cynical Batman in a world filled with people who hate superheroes, just like BvS. Yet everyone praises Kingdom Come like crazy while people hate BvS. It's amazing how much "serious Superman" isn't what's actually wrong with BvS--what's wrong is Snyder forgot to make Superman a person rather than some weird messiah. To be fair, there are still lots of hints of his inner humanity sprinkled throughout BvS, but those qualities are all overshadowed by him being Superman, which is wrong because he's supposed to be Clark first and Superman second. That whole "Martha" fiasco was a weird attempt to humanize Superman, and it does make sense if you think about it. But... it was just so poorly executed. It came off less like "HEY WE'RE BOTH PEOPLE UNDER THESE SUITS" and more like "YOUR MOTHER HAS THE SAME NAME AS MY MOTHER? WE'RE INSTANTLY FRIENDS," especially since there's, like, no indication Superman was a person until that very moment.

That said, I genuinely feel like the Ultimate Edition is a good movie, like a hard 6/10. But Snyder's so focused on making Superman "realistic" that he forgot that part of being real means being human and relatable.

Edit: I could actually argue with myself about how Man of Steel showed LOTS of humanizing moments for Clark in his moments leading up to becoming Superman, but I still feel like... it just... wasn't very good at writing Superman. I still love the action and music a lot, though. The film's score does a much better job of telling a hopeful Superman story than the actual film does.

*there is many a film

Come on friend, if you're gonna use an overly pompous expression, at least use it right.


This is what I remember from BvS: dramatic music; Clark Kent staring; Bruce Wayne staring; everything being a shade of the same boring colour; that, by the time they got to the actual Batman vs. Superman part of the movie, I already didn't care because they had spent a very long time trying to convince me that this long haired blond kid is somehow actually important because haha look how quirky he is and how he talks like the Joker except he's the opposite of the Joker, because while the Joker has no plan, but a definite purpose, this guy has a plan and absolutely no purpose, he just wants to blow shit up in the most expensive way possible and if you ask him "but why tho" he'll say "because... i'm my father's son? idk"; and then Wonder Woman fought some big guy while everyone else was distracted.

What I don't remember is any sort of character development other than "BATMAN IS ANGRY" and "SUPERMAN IS SUPERMAN".

As you already pointed out the Superman character development was in Man of Steel, BvS was a direct sequel, so he had no need for more of it and that's why there was so much focus on Bruce, although I feel like Snyder felt that everyone already knows all about who Batman is, so just to keep people from complaining "WTF, who is this pepper-haired guy in a flying rodent suit" he threw in some mention of his past leading up to now but not so much that made the other half of the viewers go "oh my god I know, I know! Everybody knows who Batman is! Get to the action bruh! More explosions and crashing through walls!!!" but I felt it was a good mix of "People know these guys, but I still want to flush them out and develop them for my film without boring the crowd with 65% of screentime being backstory and becoming who they are."

In short, you'll never please everyone, just like I posted on here a decade ago about Alien vs Predator, I'll say the same thing today about Batman vs Superman, they are both Gritty, yet with action, Crossover films that everybody has been begging to see on the big screen for ages, so that being said everyone has high expectations, however, look at how many people it has to please, while only being one film. They aren't going to make a super action packed, bloody, cussing, rap music playing, no story version for the dope heads that just want explosions and testosterone, then a version with jokes every 5 minutes and a bunch of standing around with your arms crossed and a bunch of fight scenes and fun old songs playing for the Marvel fanboys, then a serious dark tone film that delves into the emotional side for people like me who want an overly gritty film about two heroes I've loved my whole life, and then another with speeches about friendship and family with light piano tunes for the soccer moms who mistakenly took their ten year old to see BvS because Superheroes and child friendly is what Marvel conditioned her to expect. You can't please them all, and it's only one performance, so there will be mistakes. It's all a matter of opinion really, for instance, AvP, I loved it. Was it necessarily a good film? Perhaps not, it had really great aspects and a few dropped low-balls and "meh" points, so no, maybe it wasn't a fantastic film, I'll admit to that, but I still love it.

I personally just see quality in the film, and I highly enjoyed it, but it's hard to get something that big of a deal (C'mon, it's arguably the two most recognizable superheroes ever, third being like Spiderman, but the Batman fighting mother f'ing Superman) but something that big a deal juuuuust right the first (and possibly only other than sequels but I don't see a remake anytime soon) time in everyone's eyes. Just like I said about AvP like 12 years ago.

It's not good. I just don't understand why people keep defending it. There's absolutely no philosophical distinction between the two characters, there's no tonal difference, and the plot is incoherent. Superman is a scowling pretentious jerk who kills people, AND SO IS BATMAN. It's preening, posturing adolescent machismo from beginning to end. It's BAD. The editing is BAD. The storytelling is BAD. The writing is BAD.

I just don't understand. All they had to do was show two guys who are both good people, have a fundamental disagreement/misunderstanding that forces them against each other, and discover that, actually, they're on the same side because there's a greater threat. It's "superheroes meet, have a misunderstanding, fight, then team up against the bad guy." It's not THAT hard; the animated series from the 90's did it in an interesting, coherent way, and that was a cartoon intended for children.

All I needed was a story about Batman fighting Superman. It didn't deliver.

"character development was in Man of Steel, BvS was a direct sequel, so he had no need for more of it"

Character development doesn't mean backstory, it means the characters reacting to events in a way that makes them seem more human than just stones with faces drawn on them. Angry stone and stone who can fly and punch things. But we all know these characters, so ya gotta just imagine their personalities while they have the same facial expression throughout the movie.




Let me tell you what I fucking remember. I remember The Dark Knight Returns, which I saw long before BvS. BECAUSE IT HAD CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. It wasn't just Batman going "well, I guess I'd better beat up Superman to stop these bad dreams." and Superman going "Martha..." It had actual drama - DRAMA, NOT DRAMATIC MUSIC TO IMPLY THAT DRAMA IS HAPPENING - and the whole world wasn't depressed just because Superman exists. Do you know what would happen to humanity if super heroes actually existed? Nothing. People would go on with their lives. When 9/11 happened - because that's a super-hero movie scale disaster - do you know what I did? I was watching it on TV and I thought "whoa, I can't believe this is really happening, how can this be real?" and 15 years later I still don't care. Remember Fukushima? Or think about Chernobyl. Do you feel like the world is a bit of a shitty shade because Chernobyl happened? When the Sewol sank with 300 high school students trapped inside and they all died, would Korea's first female president not have had the police spray their parents with fire hoses the next year when they gathered at the memorial if Superman had existed? Of course she would have, because Superman is fucking boring. OOOOH THERE'S A GOD AMONG US, HE CAN'T BE HARMED BY BULLETS AND ALSO it doesn't mean anything because he doesn't do anything important. He doesn't save people, he doesn't write good news, he doesn't think Batman is cool. On the other hand, if Batman existed, sure, people would care because he's just a dude in a suit who fights crime at night and if he decided to fight Superman for no fucking reason people wouldn't care because it has nothing to do with anything. Oh and also Lex Luthor blows some shit up because he's there too haha don't forget we have a villain in this movie ;)

@HP: Well sure, of course you can't please everyone. Even GOOD movies don't please everyone, so between being a good movie that doesn't please everyone and being a bad movie that doesn't please everyone, I'd rather have the good one.

And man, people don't hate BvS because it was a crossover. Crossovers can work. Bad writing doesn't. AVP wasn't bad because it was a crossover, it was bad because it was bad. Same thing goes for Freddy Vs Jason and whatever other bad crossovers you can think of. Good superhero crossovers already exist, it's not impossible to do them.

And sure, everyone is AWARE of these characters, but not many people truly know them. And people don't know THESE versions of the characters. You can't just not have character development and plot explanations just because people know who Batman is. Imagine if a new James Bond just... had no background or personality. Imagine if Daniel Craig's run started out with him just being brooding and cold-eyed with no explanation...and then he spent all of his movies giving no explanation. Why the hell should I care about this asshole? People are aware of James Bond, but they don't know him. You've gotta show people what he's like and what he turns out to be. That's what character development is for.

I still stand by the 6/10 rating, but god it should have been a 9/10. It had so much potential. How does Snyder take two of the most iconic characters in history and make them lackluster while Marvel is taking a bunch of D-list no-names and making them superstars? Everyone hates Superman and Batman right now while everyone fucking loves Ant Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy. I can guarantee you knew absolutely no one who knew about Black Panther two years ago. Who the hell was Iron Man and Captain America before 2008? Who the hell was Thor? Black Widow? Some guy named Coulson is huge and he's not even a superhero. Spider-Man, one of the biggest superheroes in the world, is no longer the biggest star of Marvel's live action movies. Superman is somehow not the biggest superhero in the world right now. Motherfucking Super Girl is better received than Superman right now. That's surreal. It's incredible.

I've seen plenty of arguments in favor of BvS that actually make sense, but the problem is that none of these arguments are made explicitly clear in the movie itself. For all the explanations for Luthor's behavior and Batman's Martha rant, none of that is actually clear in the story proper. You can explain away Batman's killing all you want--"it's because he's an older Batman who's tired of the world" or "he had no faith in humanity which is why he was murdering people"--but none of that is actually in the movie. It's just not. It's poorly executed and it's a goddamn shame. And the faithless Batman thing doesn't even make sense. We've seen Batman at MUCH worse in other movies and comics, yet I don't remember him ever falling so low that he started killing people (or branding them) on a whim. Batman Beyond started because Bruce would rather give up being Batman than start killing people. He would rather kill himself before he willingly killed another person. Affleck and Cavill have the capacity to be the best Batman and Superman we've ever seen, but the shit writing is holding them back.

I don't want you to feel like we're attacking you, it's just, none of those things you listed are the real issue. The real issue is that it's just bad.

Edit: I'm not trying to convince you to hate the movie either. You like what you like, you can't help it. I enjoy plenty of things about movies I consider bad 'cause not everything about them is bad.

I actually just realized that this Batman doesn't even have a backstory in the movie. It repeats the backstory of Batman, but for the last few decades that's been the backstory for a Batman who doesn't kill. Because what's the point of a Batman who kills, really? The point was that he killed communists. Back when Batman used guns in the comics, he also hated the Chinese and the Mongols. He wasn't The Batman. If The Batman killed people, Gotham City would criminal-free in less than a year. So how DID this Batman, who can beat Superman, manage to survive for 20 years without killing everyone?



EDIT:

Lol, yeah Bloo for a second there I felt a bit of pressure, but it's all good. Basically what I'm pretty much trying to clear up, at least on my end and in my personal opinion is that I don't see how so many people, including on here are stating that it is factual that BvS was an awful movie. I'm pretty much just saying we all have a choice here, you like steak? I like chicken, sorry. "The ROOM" is a factual "Bad Film", poor production quality, writing, acting, casting, etc etc, nothing was good, The Room was like Family Guy, people watch it to laugh at how pathetic or dumb it is, not because it's a great film, but honestly? I almost take that back because it's still arguably "Art", and to an extent some "Great Pieces of Art" look like my girlfriend's 2-year-old's chalk art on the bedroom wall, but to some uppity-pompous snob it's a "Marvelous Piece".

I'm stating that I say, in my eyes, Batman vs Superman and Alien vs Predator were Great and Enjoyable. Quality? Perhaps not, perhaps so, but Good in my eyes. And I feel too many people are saying "No, we don't dislike because we dislike, we dislike because IT IS BAD"

"Well... You know... that's just, like... your opinion, man."

I'm in no way saying that Marvel is factually poor, or BvS is Proven quality, I'm saying that to me personally, I really thought it was great, well done, and enjoyable to me for reasons, whereas I find Marvel to be sub-par, unenjoyable, and just 'meh' at very very best. There's no need for people blowing up in all caps and pulling out the explicitives to tell me that their opinion is fact and my opinion is unacceptable. That's all I'm saying, dig what you dig, I'll enjoy what I find pleasing. Here are my reasons as to why I find it to be an enjoyable film, now why are people saying it's indeed a poor film and not just simply "Not their cup of tea?" because apparently Snyder thought it was where he wanted it to go, and I had no problems with his direction.

>now why are people saying it's indeed a poor film and not just simply "Not their cup of tea?"

I'm 30% sure we have all presented several reasons as to why we believe it's actually bad, but at the same time, it doesn't really matter, it's just a discussion based on different tastes and standards. It would be foolish to hold one standard as higher than the other, given that they don't really go together. It would be like saying the Gobi desert is better than Antarctica because there's less ice, even though they're obviously both great and shit for entirely different reasons. It's a matter of perspective.

It's the same with The Room. From an artistic standpoint, The Room is a masterpiece. Not because of the ironic so-bad-it's-good factor, which is what most people see in it, but because it is the final step in the story of Tommy Wiseau's struggle, the point where he made his dreams come true. In this way, The Room is more ukiyo-e than movie, because it's just a low value printing of the story that made it possible. When you understand Tommy Wiseau, you will find things in his movie that you otherwise wouldn't know were there. Most people look at ukiyo-e and see a print of an image, without knowing that each coloured shape's negative was carved by hand into its own wooden stamp by the artist, especially for creating this specific low quality print of an image and then be disposed of. It's the same with The Room, everything Tommy went through since he was a young boy in Poland was stamped into that low quality movie.

Well whether Paul Anderson made the biggest mistake of being exceedingly biased while creating a crossover film or not, you could say that AvP has similarities to The Room. (Hah, this segue came full circle somehow back to AvP lol) Paul Anderson grew up being a huge fanatic of Alien and the Xenomorph fictional species, just like us. He states that ever since seeing Alien he always wanted to make an Alien film, and a film with a strong female lead, and wanted to make a breakthrough film that people would kill to see, and loved the idea of mythology and creating a universe so-to-speak.

AvP was Paul's The Room, maybe not quite to that extent but event though AvP was all about "The Preds do this, the Preds have that, Worship Preds, Predator Honour and ritual, the Predators win" etc etc and they dive into Predator Lore and Culture and the Aliens are just kind of... there, he still made an Alien Film, and indulged himself in making one Alien kill two Yautja in a row (including possibly the coolest Yautja ever... still bitter about not getting to see Celtic rip apart a Xeno and winning that Grid fight but, I digress, Paul proved his point of how tough they are I suppose...) to showcase that they aren't disposable insects but an actual threat. It's an Alien film, has some hints of the first Alien's creepy and the sequel's Action.

Alexa is no Ellen Ripley but she's a strong female lead, she has her weaknesses and shows fear (Just as Ripley did) but also stood up to it all and became strong. Still no Ripley though, but he didn't want an obvious copy. For the breakthrough film he made freakin' AvP, people have begged for decades. So as you may say about the Room, maybe not quite the same struggle but, Paul has wanted to make a film like that his whole life, he became a Writer/Director, and if you say "What he did doesn't constitute or qualify as Writing and Directing, so hardly" then I'd same the exact same for The Room, and then he got a story (I'd say a nice one too) and a great production value (Well made costumes and effects and sets), sure it had it's flaws but you know what, he made his dream come true, and mine by seeing and AvP film be made, and impressed me with the new Lore created that fully combined the two species and showing us new forms of both on film that I found impressive in their own right. Does Scar hold a candle to Jungle Hunter? Not at all, not even in the slightest, but Celtic is still for some reason my favourite Yautja.

We've gone on-topic in the off-topic thread, thus going off the topic of being off-topic, which makes it on-topic, and therefore off-topic. I just want everyone to appreciate how meta this is for a minute. We're living the dream, folks. We're living the goddamn dream.

Also, I'm curious to watch the first AVP again; I want to see if it's as bad as I remember or if it has some campy charm. I remember liking Lex, at any rate.

^I WANNA TURN OFF THE LIGHT BUT THE SWITCH IS ALREADY IN THE OFF POSITION AND NOW WHEN I TURN THE LIGHT OFF THE SWITCH IS IN THE ON POSITION AND IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Hey we should all watch AVP and discuss it again. It's like a "10 years later" reunion thing but not meaningful at all.

Edit: I liked Alexa but I don't remember a single human character from Requiem.

@HP: Yeah that's the thing, the AVP movies were dicks in a blender but all the designs were still really cool. That's why the same fans who shit on the movies are still buying all the Hot Toys and NECA statues of Celtic and Grid.