Page 1 of 1

you know what this forum needs?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:06 pm
by JamieW
more me

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:20 pm
by CowboySlim
Roger That!

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:36 pm
by JamieW
Mission Impossible movies while great action movies are not good MI flicks. Anyone agree?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:09 pm
by dolphinius_rex
JamieW wrote:Mission Impossible movies while great action movies are not good MI flicks. Anyone agree?


The first one was a decent MI flick I think... but the second one was pure action (and garbage :P)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:01 pm
by smartin4
JamieW wrote:Mission Impossible movies while great action movies are not good MI flicks. Anyone agree?


Any movies with Tom Cruise in them are not good movies.

Re: you know what this forum needs?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:03 pm
by smartin4
JamieW wrote:more me


I agree Jamie, you add a great, albeit interesting at times, point of view to many a conversation.

Here's to more JamieW =D> =D>

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:28 pm
by JamieW
Here's why I think MI movies were craptacular MI titles. Mission Impossible stories were based on the premise that this group has been selected by the smartest people. No stone left unturned. They are the absolute best available. And they are loyal. In the MI series there would be NO betrayals. Yet all the MI movies are based on an insider betrayal. Like the people selecting these MI agents are going to miss the "will betray team for personal gain" part? Doubtful. Which is why I say they are great action movies, but horrible MI titles.

Mighty Ducks. Best sports trilogy of all time. Agree?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:30 pm
by dodecahedron
JamieW wrote:more me

nutsack! :lol:

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:37 pm
by JamieW
I tried to see how long ago that was, date says 1969. Man, do I feel old now.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:57 pm
by dolphinius_rex
dodecahedron wrote:
JamieW wrote:more me

nutsack! :lol:


I really couldn't stop laughing the whole time I was reading that. Ian's responses and attempts to remove the nutsack talk were probably what pushed it over the top for me.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:19 pm
by Ian
deeeezzz nuuutttzzzz

Re: you know what this forum needs?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:28 pm
by CowboySlim
JamieW wrote:more me


We also need Monte back! Kinda' miss the Monte & Jenn soap opera.


I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than ride in Ted Kennedy's car!

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:17 am
by hoxlund
ok for movie retardedness

doom, ok

way in the future, where the fuck are their night vision goggles?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:07 am
by dolphinius_rex
hoxlund wrote:ok for movie retardedness

doom, ok

way in the future, where the fuck are their night vision goggles?


That movie was HILARIOUS! I don't even mind that I spent money on seeing it in the theatres, since I went in expecting pretty much what I got. I actually expected less of a plot line then I got, but that's ok :P

Re: you know what this forum needs?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:27 pm
by Boba_Fett
CowboySlim wrote:
JamieW wrote:more me

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than ride in Ted Kennedy's car!


BURN!!!

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:45 pm
by LoneWolf
JamieW wrote:Here's why I think MI movies were craptacular MI titles. Mission Impossible stories were based on the premise that this group has been selected by the smartest people. No stone left unturned. They are the absolute best available. And they are loyal. In the MI series there would be NO betrayals. Yet all the MI movies are based on an insider betrayal. Like the people selecting these MI agents are going to miss the "will betray team for personal gain" part? Doubtful. Which is why I say they are great action movies, but horrible MI titles.
I wouldn't say there would be no betrayals...but I would say Jim Phelps never would have been a traitor. That killed the first movie for me.

The second one was poor too, what happens when you let John Woo direct what ought to be a plot-oriented flick.