If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   Godzilla is a monster hit at the box office, bringing in $92 million and securing its place at the top, knocking Neighbors to the #2 spot, and Jon Hamm's Million Dollar Arm debuts at #4 while The Amazing Spider-Man 2 tumbles to #3   (deadline.com) divider line 148
    More: Followup, The Amazing Spider-Man, Disney's Million Dollar Arm, neighbors, box offices, Matrix Reloaded, brickfilm, Seth Rogen, DIS  
•       •       •

824 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 18 May 2014 at 1:13 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-18 06:16:20 PM  
2014 Godzilla was good. So was Battleship. 1998 Godzilla was awful. That's all there is to it.
 
2014-05-18 06:17:40 PM  

KIA: It has no legs.  X-Men will destroy it like a toy city next weekend.


Surrreeeee....
 
2014-05-18 06:21:04 PM  
Battleship was good? You guys do know the plot is around a chicken burrito right?
 
2014-05-18 06:28:25 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Isn't a lot of military hardware EMP-harded, though?


It is
 
2014-05-18 06:33:16 PM  

eddievercetti: I liked the slow build. Sue me. Quicksilver did do something...at the end. He was just there as a guy connecting the plot.
Sad Cranston got only 30 minutes of screentime.


Gotta admit, I did NOT expect them to give him the Psycho treatment. :-(
 
2014-05-18 06:49:33 PM  

eddievercetti: Battleship was good? You guys do know the plot is around a chicken burrito right?


Mmmmm Brooklyn decker chicken burrito
 
2014-05-18 06:50:28 PM  

eddievercetti: Battleship was good? You guys do know the plot is around a chicken burrito right?




All I wanted to see is Battleships blowing things up, and someone say "you sank my battleship!" Everythhing else is gravy. I dont know why people think its bad, given the lowball requirements of summer flicks nowadays.

That's pretty much what I've learned to expect from internet dweller about Summer Films. No matter how bad they are, as long as they fill one wish, its an awesome movie.

Tansformers: I just want to see giant robots fight.
Man of Steel: I just want to see Superman punch things loudly.
 
2014-05-18 07:01:14 PM  

Shelbyville: Toho needs to ban America from ever releasing another Godzilla movie ever again. Stop letting us gaijin ruin Godzilla.


Toho loved it. Your argument is invalid.
 
2014-05-18 07:13:41 PM  

soporific: Shelbyville: Toho needs to ban America from ever releasing another Godzilla movie ever again. Stop letting us gaijin ruin Godzilla.

Toho loved it. Your argument is invalid.


Be nice to the Japanophile.
 
2014-05-18 07:15:47 PM  

stoli n coke: soporific: Shelbyville: Toho needs to ban America from ever releasing another Godzilla movie ever again. Stop letting us gaijin ruin Godzilla.

Toho loved it. Your argument is invalid.

Be nice to the Japanophile.


It just emboldens them and causes them to reach higher levels of weeaboodom.
 
2014-05-18 07:30:13 PM  
Okay, if you're biatching about the characters in this movie, then kindly give me a list of all the interesting, memorable human characters from previous G movies.
 
2014-05-18 07:35:32 PM  

Old enough to know better: Okay, if you're biatching about the characters in this movie, then kindly give me a list of all the interesting, memorable human characters from previous G movies.


There was the super psychic dude with ninja monster controlling powers in Final Wars.  That guy was pretty awesome.
 
2014-05-18 07:37:00 PM  

Old enough to know better: Okay, if you're biatching about the characters in this movie, then kindly give me a list of all the interesting, memorable human characters from previous G movies.


Because that is totally my job.
 
2014-05-18 07:39:55 PM  
When did Fark get swallowed up by 14 year old boys?

This is heartbreaking.
 
2014-05-18 07:45:19 PM  

fisker: When did Fark get swallowed up by 14 year old boys?

This is heartbreaking.


I like to think it's more like Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons.
 
2014-05-18 07:47:21 PM  

fisker: When did Fark get swallowed up by 14 year old boys?

This is heartbreaking.


I wish they turned 15 and learned how to properly threadshiat
 
2014-05-18 07:48:44 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Naritai: Mad_Radhu: texdent: JonBuck: Saw it. Loved it. Next question.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Unless someone can provide a reasonable mechanism for how it would NOT make a sound, we should assume it does. To think otherwise is needlessly complicating things.

But does a sound exist without a listener?  It's nothing but vibrations of the air until someone is there to interpret it as sound.

Vibrations are vibrations, no matter if someone is there to make it sound. That's why philosophical wankery is pretty useless compared to basic science. If you have a liquid or gas medium, and a big heavy object falls, it's gonna make vibrations that would be interpreted as sound. If you want to argue otherwise, the onus is on you to prove that a sound is not made in the absence of a listener.

It's like that whole bullshiat about if people see colors the same, which is pretty stupid considering that color can be ties to specific wavelength of light. Not to mention we have farking Pantone color swatches that pretty much are designed to help people agree on colors.


You must be a blast at parties.
 
2014-05-18 07:57:25 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Naritai: Mad_Radhu: texdent: JonBuck: Saw it. Loved it. Next question.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Unless someone can provide a reasonable mechanism for how it would NOT make a sound, we should assume it does. To think otherwise is needlessly complicating things.

But does a sound exist without a listener?  It's nothing but vibrations of the air until someone is there to interpret it as sound.

Vibrations are vibrations, no matter if someone is there to make it sound. That's why philosophical wankery is pretty useless compared to basic science. If you have a liquid or gas medium, and a big heavy object falls, it's gonna make vibrations that would be interpreted as sound. If you want to argue otherwise, the onus is on you to prove that a sound is not made in the absence of a listener.

It's like that whole bullshiat about if people see colors the same, which is pretty stupid considering that color can be ties to specific wavelength of light. Not to mention we have farking Pantone color swatches that pretty much are designed to help people agree on colors.


Two things.

First, sound can refer to the sound waves that are formed from vibrations or it can refer to the perception of those vibrations.  There is no one to perceive the sound, so the sound occurs under the first definition but not the second.  It's not a cut and dried "yes, stupid" like you paint it as.

Second, for your "science rox, philosophy sux!!1!" argument, the trees aren't the point of the farking question.  The question is a stand-in for a much more meaningful, interesting question.  That question is, "if something happens and no one knows about it or is affected by it, is it meaningful that it happened?"  For a good demonstration of this point, read this blog post.
 
2014-05-18 07:59:19 PM  

inclemency: Mad_Radhu: Naritai: Mad_Radhu: texdent: JonBuck: Saw it. Loved it. Next question.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Unless someone can provide a reasonable mechanism for how it would NOT make a sound, we should assume it does. To think otherwise is needlessly complicating things.

But does a sound exist without a listener?  It's nothing but vibrations of the air until someone is there to interpret it as sound.

Vibrations are vibrations, no matter if someone is there to make it sound. That's why philosophical wankery is pretty useless compared to basic science. If you have a liquid or gas medium, and a big heavy object falls, it's gonna make vibrations that would be interpreted as sound. If you want to argue otherwise, the onus is on you to prove that a sound is not made in the absence of a listener.

It's like that whole bullshiat about if people see colors the same, which is pretty stupid considering that color can be ties to specific wavelength of light. Not to mention we have farking Pantone color swatches that pretty much are designed to help people agree on colors.

You must be a blast at parties.


inclemency: Mad_Radhu: Naritai: Mad_Radhu: texdent: JonBuck: Saw it. Loved it. Next question.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Unless someone can provide a reasonable mechanism for how it would NOT make a sound, we should assume it does. To think otherwise is needlessly complicating things.

But does a sound exist without a listener?  It's nothing but vibrations of the air until someone is there to interpret it as sound.

Vibrations are vibrations, no matter if someone is there to make it sound. That's why philosophical wankery is pretty useless compared to basic science. If you have a liquid or gas medium, and a big heavy object falls, it's gonna make vibrations that would be interpreted as sound. If you want to argue otherwise, the onus is on you to prove that a sound is not made in the absence of a listener.

It's like that whole bullshiat about if people see colors the same, which is pretty stupid considering that color can be ties to specific wavelength of light. Not to mention we have farking Pantone color swatches that pretty much are designed to help people agree on colors.

You must be a blast at parties.


You would show this movie at a party? Do you realize how stupid you would look if you did that? Do you realize how stupid you would look if you started talking to a girl about this retarded movie? THINK ABOUT IT.

farking idiots all over this website, it's getting really bad here.
 
2014-05-18 08:05:17 PM  

fisker: inclemency: Mad_Radhu: Naritai: Mad_Radhu: texdent: JonBuck: Saw it. Loved it. Next question.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Unless someone can provide a reasonable mechanism for how it would NOT make a sound, we should assume it does. To think otherwise is needlessly complicating things.

But does a sound exist without a listener?  It's nothing but vibrations of the air until someone is there to interpret it as sound.

Vibrations are vibrations, no matter if someone is there to make it sound. That's why philosophical wankery is pretty useless compared to basic science. If you have a liquid or gas medium, and a big heavy object falls, it's gonna make vibrations that would be interpreted as sound. If you want to argue otherwise, the onus is on you to prove that a sound is not made in the absence of a listener.

It's like that whole bullshiat about if people see colors the same, which is pretty stupid considering that color can be ties to specific wavelength of light. Not to mention we have farking Pantone color swatches that pretty much are designed to help people agree on colors.

You must be a blast at parties.

inclemency: Mad_Radhu: Naritai: Mad_Radhu: texdent: JonBuck: Saw it. Loved it. Next question.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Unless someone can provide a reasonable mechanism for how it would NOT make a sound, we should assume it does. To think otherwise is needlessly complicating things.

But does a sound exist without a listener?  It's nothing but vibrations of the air until someone is there to interpret it as sound.

Vibrations are vibrations, no matter if someone is there to make it sound. That's why philosophical wankery is pretty useless compared to basic science. If you have a liquid or gas medium, and a big heavy object falls, it's gonna make vibrations that would be interpreted as sound. If you want to argue otherwise, the onus is on you to prove that a sound is not made in the absence of a listener.

It's like that whole bullshiat about if people see colors the same, which is pretty stupid considering that color can be ties to specific wavelength of light. Not to mention we have farking Pantone color swatches that pretty much are designed to help people agree on colors.

You must be a blast at parties.

You would show this movie at a party? Do you realize how stupid you would look if you did that? Do you realize how stupid you would look if you started talking to a girl about this retarded movie? THINK ABOUT IT.

farking idiots all over this website, it's getting really bad here.


Getaloadofthisguycam.jpeg
 
2014-05-18 08:08:38 PM  
Some people are just dumb assholes that want to hate what others do.  If you saw the commercials for Pacific Rim, paid money to see it, and didn't like what you got then you're dumbest asshole in the universe because I can't think of any other movie that delivered exactly what it promised.  And if you didn't want to see what it promised then del Toro still thanks you for the money you threw away on something you didn't want.  Morans.
 
2014-05-18 08:09:07 PM  
Well DUH, Subby! it just came out!

Let's wait till next week and see how well it holds up.
 
2014-05-18 08:12:28 PM  

texdent: JonBuck: Saw it. Loved it. Next question.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?


Yes
 
2014-05-18 08:14:04 PM  

fisker: Do you realize how stupid you would look if you started talking to a girl about this retarded movie? THINK ABOUT IT.


I have thought about it, and for me, bringing up this movie is a pretty good test of whether said girl is worth talking to.

/the wife loved it
 
2014-05-18 08:29:04 PM  
Meh. Saw it yesterday. Absolutely loved it. This is the perfect movie to pass along the Godzilla-love to the next generation.
 
2014-05-18 08:58:45 PM  

llortcM_yllort: First, sound can refer to the sound waves that are formed from vibrations or it can refer to the perception of those vibrations.  There is no one to perceive the sound, so the sound occurs under the first definition but not the second.  It's not a cut and dried "yes, stupid" like you paint it as.


If you use the second definition, it becomes a tautology. If nothing is there to perceive a sound, then nothing will perceive a sound. Is isn't ASKING anything.

Second, for your "science rox, philosophy sux!!1!" argument, the trees aren't the point of the farking question.  The question is a stand-in for a much more meaningful, interesting question.  That question is, "if something happens and no one knows about it or is affected by it, is it meaningful that it happened?"  For a good demonstration of this point, read this blog post.

Again, that's philosophy asking a question that is not really all that challenging. For example, there are very likely beings who lived and died without our knowledge on the other side of our galaxy millions of years ago. From an objective point of view, the lives of those beings had just as much meaning as ours, but from our subjective view they don't because we know know they existed. There just isn't really anything to debate, because the subjective view is obviously wrong because there are no privileged reference points in the universe.

And as for the blog post, it really lost me as to what point the author was trying to make because it was so poorly written. It seemed like the author was trying to craft some sort of straw man argument, but kind of lost steam towards the end where it just kind of fell apart. But somewhere along the way we are lead to believe at men with mustaches are probably potential rapists.
 
2014-05-18 09:05:12 PM  

Mad_Radhu: If you use the second definition, it becomes a tautology. If nothing is there to perceive a sound, then nothing will perceive a sound. Is isn't ASKING anything.


What I meant to say was "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is nothing there to perceive a sound, will anything perceive a sound?" Which is basically a tautology, because it reduces down to "if there anything there to perceive a sound will a sound be perceived?" if you use the second definition of sound.
 
2014-05-18 09:58:02 PM  

fisker: inclemency: Mad_Radhu: Naritai: Mad_Radhu: texdent: JonBuck: Saw it. Loved it. Next question.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Unless someone can provide a reasonable mechanism for how it would NOT make a sound, we should assume it does. To think otherwise is needlessly complicating things.

But does a sound exist without a listener?  It's nothing but vibrations of the air until someone is there to interpret it as sound.

Vibrations are vibrations, no matter if someone is there to make it sound. That's why philosophical wankery is pretty useless compared to basic science. If you have a liquid or gas medium, and a big heavy object falls, it's gonna make vibrations that would be interpreted as sound. If you want to argue otherwise, the onus is on you to prove that a sound is not made in the absence of a listener.

It's like that whole bullshiat about if people see colors the same, which is pretty stupid considering that color can be ties to specific wavelength of light. Not to mention we have farking Pantone color swatches that pretty much are designed to help people agree on colors.

You must be a blast at parties.

inclemency: Mad_Radhu: Naritai: Mad_Radhu: texdent: JonBuck: Saw it. Loved it. Next question.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Unless someone can provide a reasonable mechanism for how it would NOT make a sound, we should assume it does. To think otherwise is needlessly complicating things.

But does a sound exist without a listener?  It's nothing but vibrations of the air until someone is there to interpret it as sound.

Vibrations are vibrations, no matter if someone is there to make it sound. That's why philosophical wankery is pretty useless compared to basic science. If you have a liquid or gas medium, and a big heavy object falls, it's gonna make vibrations that would be interpreted as sound. If you want to argue otherwise, the onus is on you to prove that a sound is not made in the absence of a listener.

It's like that whole bullshiat about if people see colors the same, which is pretty stupid considering that color can be ties to specific wavelength of light. Not to mention we have farking Pantone color swatches that pretty much are designed to help people agree on colors.

You must be a blast at parties.

You would show this movie at a party? Do you realize how stupid you would look if you did that? Do you realize how stupid you would look if you started talking to a girl about this retarded movie? THINK ABOUT IT.

farking idiots all over this website, it's getting really bad here.


Wtf?
 
2014-05-18 10:03:00 PM  
 
2014-05-18 10:13:17 PM  

hammer85: Old enough to know better: Okay, if you're biatching about the characters in this movie, then kindly give me a list of all the interesting, memorable human characters from previous G movies.

There was the super psychic dude with ninja monster controlling powers in Final Wars.  That guy was pretty awesome.


Same movie, different character:The badass, katana-wielding Captain Gordon.  I pretty much cheered every time that dude was on-screen.
 
2014-05-18 10:20:06 PM  

fisker: inclemency: Wtf?


Meth is a hell of a drug eh? :-)
 
2014-05-19 12:25:43 AM  
Geeks are annoying.
 
2014-05-19 02:57:07 AM  

eddievercetti: Battleship was good? You guys do know the plot is around a chicken burrito right?


I like the way they gave roles to actual disabled veterans...and Brooklyn Decker. Special effects were good, and the movie was just good, dumb fun. Nothing wrong with that in the world.
 
2014-05-19 04:42:33 AM  

Naritai: But does a sound exist without a listener?  It's nothing but vibrations of the air until someone is there to interpret it as sound.


How would you create a forest without a listener - even if you dumped a million tonnes of arsenic on a forest, or something like that, it seems unlikely you could kill everything.
 
2014-05-19 04:59:56 AM  

Old enough to know better: Okay, if you're biatching about the characters in this movie, then kindly give me a list of all the interesting, memorable human characters from previous G movies.


Rex Dart....Eskimo Spy!!
 
2014-05-19 05:09:14 AM  

eddievercetti: Sad Cranston got only 30 minutes of screentime.


:-(

Well, I'll still see it because I dig Godzilla. Cranston needs a big vehicle all his own now. Another bad guy role would be great. Wish I could get to NYC to see All the Way.
 
2014-05-19 09:45:28 AM  

eddievercetti: Battleship was good? You guys do know the plot is around a chicken burrito right?


And that's what made it epic.

Battleship was stupid fun. If you went in expecting a serious flick, you were doing it wrong. If you went in expecting it to be bad, but looking forward to it, then you enjoyed it, like I did.

At this point, the only thing it's missing is a Rifftrax.

I'm planning on seeing Godzilla and Xmen as a double feature this weekend. Should be interesting.
 
2014-05-19 09:54:49 AM  
i.imgur.com
all i got
 
2014-05-19 10:51:32 AM  

devilEther: [i.imgur.com image 500x210]
all i got


well its great. i was cracking up with ninas gif and then yours to finish. to funny
 
2014-05-19 11:05:30 AM  
Godzilla was awful. No story at all, just 123 minutes of monsters walking/swimming/flying towards each other. The only thing the people in the movie manage to do is set off a nuke which has no effect on the story at all, just like the people in the movie.

/They made some convincing looking cgi clouds though.
//Zero story.
///3 slashies for the 1998 version which had a better story.
 
2014-05-19 11:07:15 AM  

BafflerMeal: Coming from the guy who did 'Monsters', I think we got out money's worth.  I was really happy that they folded in the traditional Godzilla history and cultural purposes / tropes  of the original as well.

The slow burn was great too.  In many ways this film was an homage to Jaws in how it treated Godzilla.

[unspeakablegibberer.files.wordpress.com image 396x297]


God damn did Monsters suck.
 
2014-05-19 11:24:04 AM  
Godzilla King of Monster?  more like Godzilla King of Murderers.  the MUTOs were just trying to raise a family.  papa muto crossed an ocean and king cockblocker Godzilla just to be with his true love who was unfairly imprisoned in a mountain as a child which i might add.  and after finally reuniting their children get incinerated in a giant ball of fire.  the mutos were the true heroes.
 
2014-05-19 12:28:57 PM  

DeusFlac: Godzilla King of Monster?  more like Godzilla King of Murderers.  the MUTOs were just trying to raise a family.  papa muto crossed an ocean and king cockblocker Godzilla just to be with his true love who was unfairly imprisoned in a mountain as a child which i might add.  and after finally reuniting their children get incinerated in a giant ball of fire.  the mutos were the true heroes.


Dude! Spoilers!
 
2014-05-19 12:38:58 PM  

DeusFlac: Godzilla King of Monster?  more like Godzilla King of Murderers.  the MUTOs were just trying to raise a family.  papa muto crossed an ocean and king cockblocker Godzilla just to be with his true love who was unfairly imprisoned in a mountain as a child which i might add.  and after finally reuniting their children get incinerated in a giant ball of fire.  the mutos were the true heroes.


They couldn't even get revenge on the baby killer, he was so lifeless and wooden by the time mommy realized he was a living creature it was too late for justice.

// liked the movie but thought the family reunion subplot was cliched and uninteresting.
 
2014-05-19 12:39:23 PM  

DeusFlac: Godzilla King of Monster?  more like Godzilla King of Murderers.  the MUTOs were just trying to raise a family.  papa muto crossed an ocean and king cockblocker Godzilla just to be with his true love who was unfairly imprisoned in a mountain as a child which i might add.  and after finally reuniting their children get incinerated in a giant ball of fire.  the mutos were the true heroes.


i1182.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-19 02:46:18 PM  

CodeMonkey4Life: papa muto crossed an ocean and king cockblocker Godzilla just to be with his true love


MUTO, MUTO, candle light
Doin' the town and doin' it right in the evenin'
It's pretty pleasin'
 
2014-05-19 04:50:21 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: This was a classic Godzilla movie. I grew up watching them on Philly's Channel 17 "Creature Feature" Saturday afternoons and I'm sure to me then the effects were just as titanic as today's effects were -- they honored the spirit of the older movies but de-cheesed them, and, for me, that was all I really wanted from this movie.

So, I liked it, warts and all. Obviously the weak point was Lt. Stockcharacter, but I suspect any chance of getting characterization out of him was given a double beat-down by his lack of talent (his scenes with Cranston in Japan were particularly glaring) AND the actual U.S. Navy script approval that came with being able to use the toys - this character had to be heroic, period.

It's a shame that Cranston or Watanabe couldn't have been our audience analogue.


Taylor-Johnson can act. He was excellent in the British Indie film Nowhere Man (about a teenaged John Lennon), did a nice job as Vronsky in the most recent Anna Karenina, and was a lot of fun to watch as Kick Ass. Usually I chalk up bad performances from normally solid actors to a disconnect with the director, i.e. Emma Thompson and Jeremy Irons in Beautiful Creatures. Gawd, they were awful in that, and they are 2 of my favorite actors.
 
2014-05-20 12:26:44 AM  

Soulcatcher: Mr. Coffee Nerves: This was a classic Godzilla movie. I grew up watching them on Philly's Channel 17 "Creature Feature" Saturday afternoons and I'm sure to me then the effects were just as titanic as today's effects were -- they honored the spirit of the older movies but de-cheesed them, and, for me, that was all I really wanted from this movie.

So, I liked it, warts and all. Obviously the weak point was Lt. Stockcharacter, but I suspect any chance of getting characterization out of him was given a double beat-down by his lack of talent (his scenes with Cranston in Japan were particularly glaring) AND the actual U.S. Navy script approval that came with being able to use the toys - this character had to be heroic, period.

It's a shame that Cranston or Watanabe couldn't have been our audience analogue.

Taylor-Johnson can act. He was excellent in the British Indie film Nowhere Man (about a teenaged John Lennon), did a nice job as Vronsky in the most recent Anna Karenina, and was a lot of fun to watch as Kick Ass. Usually I chalk up bad performances from normally solid actors to a disconnect with the director, i.e. Emma Thompson and Jeremy Irons in Beautiful Creatures. Gawd, they were awful in that, and they are 2 of my favorite actors.


I just assumed he was acting a role where he lost his mom at a young age, and it seems his dad checked out on him pretty rapidly too. I also figgered you tend to get pretty frosty dudes to be EOD. You don't really want screamers and nervous types fiddling with explosives.

My bigger issue was with the wife being a dumbass. He didn't make it to you in time, go to the farking shelter with your kid. Just in case dad died on the way your, kid still has a parent.
 
Displayed 48 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report