Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Note: this post will not display until it has been approved by a moderator.
Other options
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Corporal Hicks
 - Jul 28, 2017, 07:47:48 AM
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jul 27, 2017, 10:57:18 PM
Yeah, you're not allowed to like all three and it's a constant war I guess.

Posted by Scorpio
 - Jul 28, 2017, 05:26:03 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 26, 2017, 11:14:57 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 26, 2017, 10:53:03 PM
It makes sense to me that Piranha 2 is not Cameron, because in all honestly I'd rather watch a cheap and lousy film like that than an expensive lousy film like Titanic. Neither script impresses so... um... Titanic's got some pretty FX, Piranha 2's got some tits. Tits win.

Titanic has tits as well.

Titanic is a 3 hour long disaster movie with a dull love story.
Posted by BishopShouldGo
 - Jul 27, 2017, 10:57:18 PM
Yeah, you're not allowed to like all three and it's a constant war I guess.
Posted by PierreVW
 - Jul 27, 2017, 09:31:06 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 26, 2017, 10:53:03 PM
It makes sense to me that Piranha 2 is not Cameron, because in all honestly I'd rather watch a cheap and lousy film like that than an expensive lousy film like Titanic. Neither script impresses so... um... Titanic's got some pretty FX, Piranha 2's got some tits. Tits win.

I suppose this Forum is Ridley Scott versus James cameron versus Neill blomkamp all the time.

LOL

Posted by SM
 - Jul 26, 2017, 11:14:57 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 26, 2017, 10:53:03 PM
It makes sense to me that Piranha 2 is not Cameron, because in all honestly I'd rather watch a cheap and lousy film like that than an expensive lousy film like Titanic. Neither script impresses so... um... Titanic's got some pretty FX, Piranha 2's got some tits. Tits win.

Titanic has tits as well.
Posted by Gash
 - Jul 26, 2017, 10:53:03 PM
It makes sense to me that Piranha 2 is not Cameron, because in all honestly I'd rather watch a cheap and lousy film like that than an expensive lousy film like Titanic. Neither script impresses so... um... Titanic's got some pretty FX, Piranha 2's got some tits. Tits win.
Posted by HuDaFuK
 - Jul 26, 2017, 08:20:41 PM
And according to IMDb, Tombstone is officially a George P. Cosmatos film, even though it was actually directed by Kurt Russell.

It's called a ghost director.

It's no different to Walter Hill and David Giler not being credited as writers on Alien, even though they contributed the entire Ash subplot, among other things.
Posted by PierreVW
 - Jul 26, 2017, 08:09:40 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 26, 2017, 08:27:36 AM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 25, 2017, 09:44:19 PMHis debut was the awful PIRANHAS 2.

As SiL said, crediting him for that - and using it to criticise him, as you seem to be doing - is pretty stupid. He was an FX guy who was suddenly promoted to director when the original guy was fired, and even then he was simply a front under the complete control of the film's producer - he wasn't even allowed to see any of the footage he shot, much less oversee it's editing. It can hardly be considered a Cameron movie.

Not to mention he's personally mocked what a terrible movie it was on numerous occasions.

His OFFICIAL(see IMDb or any other news outlet) debut was PIRANHAS 2. It's FACT.

It doesn't matter if you, SiL or any other don't consider his first movie.
Posted by HuDaFuK
 - Jul 26, 2017, 08:27:36 AM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 25, 2017, 09:44:19 PMHis debut was the awful PIRANHAS 2.

As SiL said, crediting him for that - and using it to criticise him, as you seem to be doing - is pretty stupid. He was an FX guy who was suddenly promoted to director when the original guy was fired, and even then he was simply a front under the complete control of the film's producer - he wasn't even allowed to see any of the footage he shot, much less oversee it's editing. It can hardly be considered a Cameron movie.

Not to mention he's personally mocked what a terrible movie it was on numerous occasions.
Posted by SiL
 - Jul 26, 2017, 07:42:21 AM
He did sweet FA on Piranhas 2. He was only hired to satisfy some weird contractual obligation the producer had, then was fired under false pretenses.
Posted by Gash
 - Jul 25, 2017, 10:42:04 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 25, 2017, 09:44:19 PM
Quote from: Perfect-Organism on Jul 24, 2017, 10:24:14 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 24, 2017, 04:31:55 AM
Quote from: LCpl. D. Grant on Jun 15, 2017, 02:31:37 AM
Cameron only had one big film under his belt (The Terminator) when he directed Aliens.

It shows.

Aliens by James Cameron was as close to a perfect movie you can get.  Every scene is memorable.

The same is true with ALIEN(Ridley Scott). It was his 2nd film too. His perfect debut was THE DUELLISTS(1977).

ALIENS was the 3rd of Cameron. His second was the original Terminator. His debut was the awful PIRANHAS 2.

So I thought. Apparently not.
Posted by PierreVW
 - Jul 25, 2017, 09:44:19 PM
Quote from: Perfect-Organism on Jul 24, 2017, 10:24:14 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 24, 2017, 04:31:55 AM
Quote from: LCpl. D. Grant on Jun 15, 2017, 02:31:37 AM
Cameron only had one big film under his belt (The Terminator) when he directed Aliens.

It shows.

Aliens by James Cameron was as close to a perfect movie you can get.  Every scene is memorable.

The same is true with ALIEN(Ridley Scott). It was his 2nd film too. His perfect debut was THE DUELLISTS(1977).

ALIENS was the 3rd of Cameron. His second was the original Terminator. His debut was the awful PIRANHAS 2.
Posted by Gash
 - Jul 25, 2017, 04:37:14 PM
I'm pulling your leg. Ridley also only had one film under his belt.

Cameron had a lot of experience with tightly budgeted films. Aliens succeeds largely in fulfilling its scope, my own views on it as a sequel aside.

Posted by Perfect-Organism
 - Jul 24, 2017, 10:24:14 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 24, 2017, 04:31:55 AM
Quote from: LCpl. D. Grant on Jun 15, 2017, 02:31:37 AM
Cameron only had one big film under his belt (The Terminator) when he directed Aliens.

It shows.

Aliens by James Cameron was as close to a perfect movie you can get.  Every scene is memorable.
Posted by HuDaFuK
 - Jul 24, 2017, 08:56:16 AM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 24, 2017, 04:31:55 AMIt shows.

How?

I get that you're anti-anything Cameron, but the fact is it's hard to criticise his actual direction of the film. Regardless of what you think of the plot, he made an incredible movie for $18.5 million.
AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News