WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Sam Worthington Responds to "Terminator Salvation" Fan Feedback

Posted: August 25th, 2009 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Sam Worthington Responds to "Terminator Salvation" Fan FeedbackSubmit Comment
We already heard director McG says that there are many things he wished he did better with "Terminator Salvation" and that the sequel will be much better.

Sam Worthington read a bunch of negative feedback from fans and agrees that he should have done a better job spotting several ridiculous scenes.

"I can nitpick with the best of them and go down the list of things I saw on IMDB where they found holes in it, and go, 'You are f*cking right,'" he said. "If there was a big 10-ton robot coming outside that gas station, surely we would f*cking hear it. And I missed that. So I'm going to be a bit better when I'm looking through my f*cking scripts. So it raises my game a bit, because now I feel like an idiot for not saying it to McG."

He added that he takes criticism very seriously and uses it to become a better actor. "I read what people say, because they're my audience," Worthington continued. "And if you don't know how you're coming across, in my opinion, I think you're cutting yourself off a bit."

Click here to read our "Terminator Salvation" review.

Source: Sci-Fi Wire


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 101 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
dandythelion writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:54:34 AM

i like how he does respond to the criticism. it's something that no other actor really does.
BrundleFly writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:58:24 AM

Cool guy.
AYT BALL writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:20:39 AM

Yeah, liked him way back in his Oz movie days, hope he stays that way
The Skippy Spartan writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:37:24 AM

Jesus iam loving this guy mroe and more, starting to become a realambassador to my country's actors. Also this is what actors shoudl be doing, reading all feedback, no matter how harsh and work on them to become better.

Worthington your the man!!
BurmaShave writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:59:17 AM

It's weird this is coming from the same guy who made such arrogant comments about the AVATAR trailer response.
Sonic writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 7:01:51 AM

I like TS i know there are stuiped bit's but it's better then T3.
telur writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 7:04:48 AM

hope that not make him big head
johnny_boy writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 7:18:20 AM

who the f*ck is sam worthington? this guy must've literally came out of nowhere.all i've been hearing about is this year is sam worthington.guess hes new in the scene cuz hes cares what audiences think like a new actor would rather than not give a f*ck and just make money.
vwkombi writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 7:42:14 AM

Worthington is a fairly prolific and talented Australian actor who made it big. Honestly he was the only decent thing in Salvation.

I don't know how he didn't look at the Salvation script and say to McG "what the f*ck is this crap? Get me the real script right now!"
ACTIONFIGURE writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 8:35:13 AM

That's a great way to approach the craft of acting. He was the best actor in "Salvation" (he shoulda been John Connor...Sorry, Bale.) and is set for stardom. Keep up the good work, Sam.
Ari Gold writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 8:35:48 AM

Good on him! He was the best bit in TS easily! You know what else was sh*t, and yes I know it's just a f*cking movie, but why the f*ck would they not send more Terminators after John Connor!? He was in the Skynet HQ!!! AI my ass!
TRUEMAN writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 8:39:42 AM

Sam Worthington YOU SUCK! he is so fake, this gay is so dumb, look his face expressions looks retard! come people wake up! DIE SAM DIE! go back to outback!
Agent Calavera writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 8:43:31 AM

TRUEMAN is that a bird i see flying out of your window.... oh no, its your life.
Hitodama writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 8:54:36 AM

Worthington FTW!
vwkombi writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 9:46:01 AM

On an completely unrealted topic, whatever happened to Mink and Ranger? Geez i miss them.....
rob writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 9:54:52 AM

This is good. An actor wanting to give the public what they want!
coldplayesence writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 10:12:10 AM

imdb is full of bitchy guys anyway
TRUEMAN writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 10:15:55 AM

TRUEMAN is that a bird i see flying out of your window.... oh no, its your life. Who cares about my life? Who care about your life or the life of ranger or minwoski? we are here to speak our minds and this gay of Sam W. is only famous right now soon he will be forgotten! he is not oscar material
scarface85 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 10:21:01 AM

that was a good answer
lost_addict writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:04:24 AM

didn't the producers go bankrupt???how are they going to make a sequel???

that being said i thought 'salvation' was solid action.better then t-3 in my book
nitishbhat writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:32:32 AM

McG was proly too busy tough-talkin vid michael bay to have noticed all the little (by which i mean huge) flaws
timex89 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:35:31 AM

What's the matter TRUEMAN? You slept with him? And now you're jealous that he is famous for starring in a couple (and upcoming) blockbusters?
AYT BALL writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:39:55 AM

TRUEMAN your right, all actors not likely to win and oscar should just go away and die.....lol dumb ass!
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:41:55 AM

He admits that T4 is a sh*tty movie, than say that the Avatar trailer sucked on purpose.

I'm starting to think that T4 is better than I first thought.
AYT BALL writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:46:27 AM

He didnt actually say it sucked on purpose, just said that in comparison it sucked and thats why Cameron released the 3D clips to counter act the bad press that the FLAT version of his trailer would no doubt recieve, i wasnt blown away by the trailer but gonna see it how its meant to be seen before i slag it off......TS really sucked tho! why did that terminator bike have handle bars and a seat? why did skynet have finger print activated panels? how come marcus was the same blood type as JC? why why why?!?! lol
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:54:51 AM

"why did that terminator bike have handle bars and a seat? why did skynet have finger print activated panels?"

Would've been cool if one of the T-600s was riding the Motorcycle terminator, aka the motornator. Now THAT would've been awesome. Or they could've had the motornator transform into a Terminator and back again. They could've totally ripped off the Junkion scenes from the 1986 Transformers movie.

I bet no one knows what the f*ck I'm talking about...

"how come marcus was the same blood type as JC? why why why?!?! lol"

Interesting observation, but a nitpick, really. I imagine if you can make the leap to artifically intelligent futuristic killer robots, you can make the leap to tissue-rejection-supressing chemical c*cktails.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:55:35 AM

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzjaoKSAXhA
AYT BALL writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:59:39 AM

weeeeell if we wanna get really picky, they were still using an old sony lap top so im guessing the humans technology didnt really advance after Judgement day, so fancy drugs etc mmmmm, plus they did the operation on a dirty dusty table in the middle of the dessert.....open heart surgery? really? lol sorry just cant forgive dumbness in a movie that followed such smart prequals....not including T3
AYT BALL writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 12:01:24 PM

and i loved the Junkion stuff too! :-)
Pepeman writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 12:23:05 PM

"If there was a big 10-ton robot coming outside that gas station, surely we would f*cking hear it. And I missed that. So I'm going to be a bit better when I'm looking through my f*cking scripts. So it raises my game a bit, because now I feel like an idiot for not saying it to McG."

No Sam, McG should be directed you better, HE should have figured out that a huge f*ckin' robot just MIGHT make a sound.
Foxyllama5 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 12:51:36 PM

I don't know where he came from, but i like him. seriously though, where the heck did he come from? he just all the sudden is in movies left and right. i hope he continues to be a good actor and to continue to take critisism and improve what he needs to. he could be oscar-worthy someday.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 1:04:12 PM

"plus they did the operation on a dirty dusty table in the middle of the dessert.....open heart surgery? really? lol sorry just cant forgive dumbness in a movie that followed such smart prequals"

Yeah, well, none of the Terminator stuff made any sense after T2. I was trying to give the film (T4)some leeway after the abortion of T3. And to be fair, the heart operation didn't necessarily happen on the dusty table, that's just where they left the film. They COULD have a more sterile location. I thought of that whole heart operation thing when I saw it. Kind of hard to perform complicated surgery in the post apocalyptic wasteland without high tech equipment and ONE doctor, not even a surgeon! And what was Kates training and education in T3? A veterinarian? LOL! Ok, whatever.

The worst part, for me, is that John Connor didn't die IMMEDIATELY! Like getting your HEART impaled on a HUGE BLADE would'nt kill you immediately!

Never mind the whole day scene sh*t. Yeah, didn't Kyle EXPLICITLY states the survivors stayed down during the day, getting up and out ONLY AT NIGHT? How much of T4 was shot during the day again?

The worst part in the series, though, was in T3 where 'John Connor', played by unimposing p*ssy Nick Stahl, says that Skynet didn't have a core, that Skynet had downloaded itself into computers across the world. That skynet was SOFTWARE, not hardware. Skynet then promptly obliterates the world's cities that have all the computers he is supposedly downloaded into.

Yeah, ok, whatever. Like advanced AI, distributed or not, can function on personal computers and smart toasters across the internet. And I know something about direstubted applications like Seti. LOL. And since when did *military* software work that way, on IBM compatible HOME computers?

Wouldn't peple NOTICE a massive, instrusive AI sucking down their ram, hard drive space and CPU usage?? Or did Skynet only run on Macs? And how did Skynet START as a centralized software on a military mainframe, and SUDDENLY jump to a distributed AI running on cheap laptops and Pentium II workstations? Does that make ANY sense?

I had a LOT of ideas posted on the IMDb forums regarding T4 before it a came out that addressed T3, mostly by ignoring it, and also the entire nature of Skynet that was consistent with Cameron's visions.

I think for me, in T4, the issue of Skynet having 'bases' built according to HUMAN specs in non-central locations, not very well guarded, made no sense. How did Skynet survive the nuclear bombardment again? How did Skynet survive without a core, to go on to build human acessible and human scaled bases in places far away from Skynet's central location, bases that were very poorly defended? And if Skynet doesn't have a central location, then where the f*ck is it? Makes my head hurt. How and where did Skynet survive after the bombs fell? In the terminators? They didn't exist yet! In the computers of the world? Skynet blew them up! So there's a serious paradox here brought on by Ferris' and Brancato's OBJECTIVELY bad and incompetent T3 script.

The only solution for me is that either Nick Stahl's Connor LIED and Skynet really DID have a core, or T3 should not exist.
BlahblahIV writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 1:04:35 PM

lol The super sneaky 10 story robot was one of the first things I pointed out when I was leaving the theater. I loved that as soon as 2 (or was it 3?) people show up, EVERYONE comes off guard duty to watch. Then the old hag busted out the carrots and they were doomed lol.

Not only did nobody hear it coming, but nobody SAW it coming either? They were essentially in the middle of flat desert, the guys on the roof should have seen it miles away. OH, but maybe the dropship dropped it off? I don't know about you guys, but whenever that thing was on screen the f*cking volume and bass were loud enough to give me a concussion lol.

There is only 1 logical conclusion here. That robot was, without a doubt...a robot in disguise...
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 1:17:58 PM

And according to T1, even T2 shouldn't exist. Kyle explicitly states that sending back Arnie was Skynet's last gasp. They had smashed Skynet, and the war was won. But in one last desperate act, Skynet sent back Arnie to kill Connor's mother. Then, using the time travel equipment, they sent back Kyle. Ok. They could NOT have used the time travel machine unless Skynet was completely put down. I imagine Skynet would keep something like close, right? So I can only guess that the first time travel incursion somehow change the future, so that T2 could happen. How I have no idea. The future would have to remain consistent enough so the events and facts in T1 could still occur, but the future would have to change thereafter (after Skynet sent back the first Arnie)so that the events in T2 could ALSO occur. Resolve THAT paradox.

I mean, did Skynet change it's own future by f*cking with the past, so that Skynet suddenly had a backup time machine and a redundant AI core?
synthetic1985 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 1:19:51 PM

that's talent that makes it in the movie industry....give the audience what they wanna see and they'll support you
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 1:32:16 PM

"They were essentially in the middle of flat desert, the guys on the roof should have seen it miles away. OH, but maybe the dropship dropped it off?"

I didn't see any guys on the roof. They live underground, and I don't think they could climb onto the rickety structure of the gas station. So I don't believe, nor did I see, anyone on the roof. I've rewatched those scenes and I can't see anyone on the roof.

You DO hear the loud noise of the robot right before it attacks, so it's possible, but unlikely, that the ship, carrying the giant robot, came in unseen (and in silence..) by anyone in the group, dropped the robot, which then IMMEDIATELY attacked. Like a split second later. The noise right before it attacks is it hitting the earth a few feet above and off to the side of the gas station. Implausible, yes, but not impossible.

Some OTHER issues:

How did the group build a bunker underneath a gas station again? HUH? Where did that bunker come from? How did they dig a huge whole to hide in, without moving the entire bomb-blasted gas station?

What was with all the cars on the road? Why was there so MANY cars on the road in the DESERT, and off to the side? Were they hit by the initial nuclear blast? If so, why don't they look like it? Did Skynet nuke the deserts too? Was that a political/environmental statement on fossil fuels? Made no sense to me. One car, maybe, but fifty? All on the side just so Marcus can hit them for effect? AND on the bridge too, which was STILL INTACT? So that rules out a nuclear blast. EMP? Still, why so many cars, in the f*cking desert!?
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 1:45:30 PM

Oh, and the cars' tires AND glass were still intact. You'd think tires would be a hot commodity in the post apocalyptic wasteland future. Then again, Marcus blows up an entire tanker full of gas...another hot (and apparently unstolen) commodity.

And I'm not seeing either handlebars or seats on the motornators.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 1:48:18 PM

There's also a f*cking modern bus...in the desert. People taking a lot of trips to see cacti, are they? Must've been headed to Tijuana when 'something' hit them. Must've been that EMP from Albuquerque.
nope.com writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 1:48:39 PM

sounds like a good guy... too bad he's gonna have to go through it with Avatar, except this time the whole movie
padfootbob writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 1:49:01 PM

I like him.
SACdaddy writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 2:07:50 PM

Mink lets be serious. That's stuff about hiding under gas stations, abandoned cars on the freeway, and everything else was just sh*t McG poached from other post apocalyptic films.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 2:13:41 PM

^Agreed.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 2:27:56 PM

I can't stand McG. He's nothing more than a second rate Michael Bay and it's not like Michael Bay is a good director either... ugh
Adamtheflash writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 2:39:54 PM

He just became my favorite actor
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 2:52:04 PM

I'm just gonna recut the movie and just compile all the marcus wright parts, since he was the only part of the movie that didn't suck lohan's queefs.

And I'll colour over the film to replace the bullets with lasers.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 3:46:54 PM

Since when did filmmakers, and the like, become minstrels. f*ck the audience. These f*ckers need to stop assuming what people want to see and focus on the project at hand.

We demand more from the artistic community than we do our government. We have the wrong institution serving the people.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 3:53:12 PM

"Yeah, well, none of the Terminator stuff made any sense after T2."

Neither did T1 nor T2. I guess when you like a film it is absolved.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:00:02 PM

"Neither did T1 nor T2. I guess when you like a film it is absolved."

Ok, so how did T1 not make sense? Huh? I already stated that T1 rules out T2 up to a point, so PLEASE EXPLAIN how even T1 doesn't make any sense. I'm waiting. In fact, I'm BEGGING you to explain so I can tear you a new one.

Or are you some teenage punk that stands by the sh*t your generation is currently pumping out (T3 and T4) into the culture like a poisonous gas?
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:01:50 PM

Great, we have another niave and idealistic waif intermingling films and steet protests.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:04:14 PM

"f*ck the audience. These f*ckers need to stop assuming what people want to see and focus on the project at hand."

Yeah, they should spend 200 milllion on anything these days! f*ck the audience! There's no need to try and make back any money or pay anyone! Yeah, f*ck the audience, just get the governemnt to subsidize the next big budget sci-fi actioner! Yeah, welfare for Hollywood! Empty theaters for everyone!
mdp711 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:20:25 PM

T2...one of the best movies ever made...in my opinion. T3&T4...I'll make believe they never happened.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:24:56 PM

Terminator to me has always had that one never ending loop that never made sense. How do you send your father back to create you? It would seem like the future would have to happen before the past and we all know that makes no sense. But I always looked past that tidbit because I liked everything else about the films. Though if someone could explain that bit to me, if there is an explanation, I'd love to here it. I've been dying to find someone who understands that story bit lol.
mattcl23 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:26:22 PM

Well, I like how he just coming straight out with it. Takes some balls to address the fans and admit that your work wasn't as good as it should have been. He's earn a few bonus points with me.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:26:34 PM

John "f*ck-face" Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to protect his mother, Sarah Connor, from the Terminator.

It seems that Reese is sent back as a response to Skynet sending the Terminator, but it isn't the case.
John Connor existence is founded on him sending Reese back in time and the only reason the Terminator is sent back is because John sent Reese.

John is alive because he sends back Reese, but how in the hell does he exist to do that?! Reese would have to be sent back for another reason and John couldn't be involved, if it's to be at all plausible.

Let the ripping commence.

Those involved with T4 are too old to be a part of my generation, maybe they're a part of your club.

That's my point: T3 and T4 were poorly executed, so their sins are multiplied; however, Cameron knows how to execute, so the plots plausibility becomes irrelevant.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:32:07 PM

Why didn't John Conner just teleport that Terminator from T2 to destroy skynet?

Like, sure that'd f*ck up the timeline, and none of the resistance would likely not know each other if the timeline was restored, but at least skynet would be destroyed and none of that sh*t ever would've happened.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:32:53 PM

I dunno man, I mean T1 and T2 was good, but I just solved the f*cking problem in 7 seconds.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:34:35 PM

If filmmakers, in their creation, and audiences, in their demands, can continue to intermingle element from theater and the visual arts then why can't I contribute?
What does any of it have to do with cinema?

Naive is believing that your opinion matter.
theslayer writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:39:22 PM

sam listn to this critism stop sucking
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:41:19 PM

It's not Worthington, it's McG.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:41:36 PM

Dear god. Not to sound like the 'pretentious c*nt' that I am, but have you guys ever heard of a CTL, a closed time loop? It's actual physics, not that anyone has ever experienced or made one. If you view time as merely LINEAR, then yeah, a causality loop may not make much sense to you. If you view time as something bendable, like space, then you can fold certain parts of time into loops and make one end join the other. Hence the 'loop'. It's all very theoretical, but so is time travel in general. To say that T1 makes no sense because it employs a CTL is to admit that you don't understand either a causality loop or you don't understand that time is not necessarily always strictly linear.

And according to physicist David Deutsch, time travel to the past is possible, but when you go back in time, you travel to a virutally identical parallel universe, eliminating CTLs and pradoxes. The book he wrote is called the Fabric of Reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_Reality

Really, I was hoping you had more of a real gripe, but I WAS expecting this one, which is why I'm not posting more of a an essay reply.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:43:08 PM

"Naive is believing that your opinion matter"

Than you should stop posting. This isn't the Million Man March, it's a thread on Avatar.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:44:08 PM

People without a shred of creativity spend 200 million on a film. If we are saying "f*ck the audience", then we can deduct marketing. People will watch a film whether it is geared towards them or not.

Remember when you were a tween and you were dealing with all of those new feelings and the adults consoled you, "everyone goes through this. You're not the only one who feels this way," it remains true. If it coms from a human, then another will relate.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:48:22 PM

"If filmmakers, in their creation, and audiences, in their demands, can continue to intermingle element from theater and the visual arts"

HUH? I'm confused. Theater IS a visual art. Look it up. And using one element from a visual art in another...visual art is an ancient idea.

"then why can't I contribute?"

You can, I'm just sying that you, with your 'pluralistic' nick and avatar and remarks about 'goveernment' seem to say your talking politics rather than film. If youwere reponding to politics in a SPECIFIC film, or of this was a thread on that very subject (either the politics of filmmaking or politics in respect to filmmaking, such as regulation of ratings) then your 'contribution' would be relevant.

"What does any of it have to do with cinema?"

That's what I'm asking.
Derp88 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:48:47 PM

all hail sam worthington

sam worthington > god
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:50:48 PM

"People without a shred of creativity spend 200 million on a film. "

Yeah, just look at at that Avatar trailer. Not one ounce of creativity there.

Are you f*cking serious?
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:54:55 PM

"sam worthington > god"

McG < sh*t.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:57:24 PM

Do you guys remeber those painful inequalities from school?

Terminator 2 > Terminator 1 >> Terminator 4 >= horse manure >> Terminator 3.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 4:57:29 PM

Oooooh, it's a closed time loop.

Well, I'd still try to send one back, just to see what happens.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:09:25 PM

I was hoping you would have a better argument, or at least a fuller one.

T1 doesn't employ a CTL; you employ it as an attempt of vindication. Time being bendable has nothing to do with Reese secreting into the walking mullet that is Sarah Connor.

The "virtually identical parallel universe" is irrelevant to The Terminator, because T2 confirms that the events and time of T1 were in the same universe.

If Skynet really wanted to end the resistance, they would have never sent Arnie back.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:13:17 PM

I see.

Makes a lot of sense.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:14:52 PM

"Yeah, just look at at that Avatar trailer. Not one ounce of creativity there."

Eh, they're not really going off the beaten path. New colors on an old canvas.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:22:14 PM

"I was hoping you would have a better argument, or at least a fuller one."

It's the only argument I need. Your claim 'T1 makes no sense' is the argument that needs defending. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you have't given anything as evidence save your refusal to accept CTLs. Hey, it works for physicists and philosophers, it works for me. The fact it makes sense doesn't hurt.

"If Skynet really wanted to end the resistance, they would have never sent Arnie back."

HUH? Did you watch the same films as the rest of us?? Skynet sent Arnie back in T1 to kill Connor before he was born. The Resistance sent Reese back to afterwards to stop Arnie. Reese had ALREADY had sex with Sarah Connor, int he past, or else John Connor would've never been born. But John WAS born because Reese had already gone back in time. In the past. From the future. It's a perfect CTL.

From Wiki:

"A predestination paradox (also called causal loop, causality loop, and (less frequently) closed loop or closed time loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" or "predates" them to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time traveling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened must happen. A time traveler attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling their role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. Or that the time-traveler's personal knowledge of history already includes their future travels to their own experience of the past."

"T1 doesn't employ a CTL"

No, it doesn't, because Terminator 1 is in fact nothing BUT a CTL.

minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:26:34 PM

"Eh, they're not really going off the beaten path. New colors on an old canvas."

And what would be going off the beaten path be to you? Precisely. Do you know? No? Then how can you say it's not creative?
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:29:58 PM

"Reese had ALREADY had sex with Sarah Connor,"

aka

Operation GET MY DAD LAID.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:31:15 PM

"The "virtually identical parallel universe" is irrelevant to The Terminator, because T2 confirms that the events and time of T1 were in the same universe."

Actually, they don't. The fact that events are indentical in two different universes implies they are "virtually identical", which is why it works. Which is why you can travel back in time, flip over into a virtually identical universe, change the past and suffer no paradoxes. I bring this up to explain the alternate ending to Terminator 2, where the war is avoided. Hence, two universes are identical until someone 'time travels' and changes one. This explains how a Terminator can arrive from a future that no longer exists. Hence the happier ending for T2.

You really aren't understanding what I'm saying are you?
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:36:01 PM

"Eh, they're not really going off the beaten path. New colors on an old canvas."

Creativity is the act of creating something new. Now, I haven't seen Avatar, so it's new to me. That makes it creative. Right? I mean, any take, any inpired piece of work that builds on something, is creativity, and if it didn't exist BEFORE, then it's creative.

Compare this to commercial mass production.

just because you're a cynical and sour twat doesn't mean Avatar isn't creative. It is, even if it's not entirely original. If that was the case, then virtually everything in the world isn't creative.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:36:59 PM

Did I say 'creative' enough? Or do I need to say it some more?
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:39:37 PM

"HUH? I'm confused. Theater IS a visual art. Look it up. And using one element from a visual art in another...visual art is an ancient idea."

Cerberus at the gates. I should be more specific. I'm not saying there isn't anybody doing it, but the possibilities of cinema aren't really being explored. In it's current use cinema is the sum of all mediums. What has been developed in theater, literature and music isn't used as a source of inspiration, but as its substance.

I'm not saying we need a bunch of Man Rays and Duchamps, but they explored cinema ... and they were able to keep it under 200 million.

"You can, I'm just saying that you, with your 'pluralistic' nick and avatar and remarks about 'government' seem to say your talking politics rather than film. If youwere reponding to politics in a SPECIFIC film, or of this was a thread on that very subject (either the politics of filmmaking or politics in respect to filmmaking, such as regulation of ratings) then your 'contribution' would be relevant."

'Tis the source of miscommunication. I was merely saying that I expect the government to serve the people not the artistic community. This customer service sh*t has gone too far. It's reasonable for the executives, producers and the like, to have an interest in the audience, whether it's financial or ... is there anything else?

I just think it's ridiculous when everyone involved worries more about the audiences reaction to the film instead of the film itself. It's particularly insulting when they release a sh*t film and advertise it to my demographic.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:40:57 PM

"aka

Operation GET MY DAD LAID."

The Terminator had SkyNet, Reese just had a wet fly.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:52:15 PM

Well, I can finally say I've found a more pretentious c*nt than either myself or Prevalent Mind.

"but the possibilities of cinema aren't really being explored. "

And how do you propse to rectify the situation? How do you plan to fully explore cinema, moreso than the last century? I'm on edge waiting to hear your revolutionary ideas.

"I'm not saying we need a bunch of Man Rays and Duchamps, but they explored cinema ... and they were able to keep it under 200 million."

Duchamp died FORTY years ago. First off, inflation. 200 million back then wasn't 200 million. People got paid less, there was less wealth to pay them. They didn't have expensive CGI. They didn't have expensive sets. The guy took a urinal and called it a Fountain. CLEVER!

"I was merely saying that I expect the government to serve the people not the artistic community."

Ok. I'm not sure what the hell the government has to do with making films in Hollywood.

"I just think it's ridiculous when everyone involved worries more about the audiences reaction to the film instead of the film itself."

Yeah, yeah, I get what you're saying. Hollywood should make art without giving a sh*t what the audiences think. Screw big budget sci-fi and action films, just make artsy crap and hope someone pays to see it. Well good luck buddy. Where I live, people like big films, not arthouse nausea. And people have to get paid for BIG films, and that means giving a sh*t what your audience thinks. And no, we typically frown on the idea of mixing government with entertainment over here, even if our government is often times unintentionally entertaining.
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:52:39 PM

Well the entirety of Terminator is a paradox anyways. The Terminator arm technology led to the creation of the technology used to create the terminators... even if you go with the "time loop" thing, where does the technology in that first universe come from? Also, what is the point of sending something back through time if it won't effect YOUR universe, just lead to a new thread of time-space?

But I'm sure this sh*t has been debated for a while now, so I guess I'm done. Point is... Terminator should just stop being made.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:57:32 PM

"And what would be going off the beaten path be to you? Precisely. Do you know? No? Then how can you say it's not creative?"

Discarding, or not involving, plot, establishing shots, story and even character.

"Actually, they don't. The fact that events are indentical in two different universes implies they are "virtually identical", which is why it works. Which is why you can travel back in time, flip over into a virtually identical universe, change the past and suffer no paradoxes. I bring this up to explain the alternate ending to Terminator 2, where the war is avoided. Hence, two universes are identical until someone 'time travels' and changes one. This explains how a Terminator can arrive from a future that no longer exists. Hence the happier ending for T2.

You really aren't understanding what I'm saying are you?"

Absolve away.

"Creativity is the act of creating something new. Now, I haven't seen Avatar, so it's new to me. That makes it creative. Right? I mean, any take, any inpired piece of work that builds on something, is creativity, and if it didn't exist BEFORE, then it's creative."

So a new born child is creative? The macaroni portraits you continue to make are creative?

The technology created for the project is very creative.

"Compare this to commercial mass production."

Wouldn't it still fall under your definition of creative, because it's new?

"just because you're a cynical and sour twat doesn't mean Avatar isn't creative. It is, even if it's not entirely original. If that was the case, then virtually everything in the world isn't creative."

Lol, I can live with that.
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 5:58:47 PM

"Reese had ALREADY had sex with Sarah Connor,"

aka

Operation GET MY DAD LAID."

HAHAHA
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:06:28 PM

WETHEPEOPLE said "Discarding, or not involving, plot, establishing shots, story and even character."

Hmm, I watched this series of short movies by this guy Kurt something... there was one in particular that I remember. It started looking over a field of grain, a small figure standing near the middle of the shot. Then, for the next ten minutes, it cut between same four shots of the same guy. First, a man drank a glass, his eyes off frame. Second, he pissed, d*ck right smack in the center pissing right at the viewer. Third, he took a bite of a sandwich. Fourth, he took a huge sh*t, with the camera looking up at the anus (in the top right corner of the screen) as the sh*t traveled to the ground (off screen in the lower left hand corner). It then repeated, the same four clips cut and edited together. Drink. Piss. Eat. sh*t. Drink piss eat sh*t drink piss eat sh*t drink piss eat sh*t drink piss eat sh*t.

You should check it out!
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:13:35 PM

"Wouldn't it still fall under your definition of creative, because it's new?"

Sure, the first time it was made, but then, like I said, once it becomes 'mass' made it's no longer new. Think of all those cheap paitings they sell in bulk. Now, nothing creative there, right? But SOMEONE had to design the first one, and that's the creative part. Once they get mass produced, well, nothing new in that, right?

"So a new born child is creative? The macaroni portraits you continue to make are creative?"

Yes, in a way it is, if you think of objects and ideas as PERMUTATIONS of possibilities. So in that sense, any permutation of an idea or thing is in fact new. And nature isn't creative? Billions of years of evolution producing new and varied creatures to me is vastly more 'creative' than most of all human made things.

But then again, you probably think the works of Vermeer aren't creativity because thay all share a similarity in lighting and composition.

"Also, what is the point of sending something back through time if it won't effect YOUR universe, just lead to a new thread of time-space? "

From the POV of the object, there's no point. from the POV of the person doing the traveling, everything, especially when the alterate universe is "virtually identical".

If I could go back in time and take to myself as a child, even if it meant I was traveling to a universe virtually identical, but not the PRECISE universe of my past, what would be the difference? If the only difference between those universes is the direction a blade of grass is blowing on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy, then what's the difference, until I step back? The power of Deutsch's theory is the resolution to many paradoxes in time travel, by allowing for travel into the past of an virtually identical world. Time Travel, but not.

"The Terminator arm technology led to the creation of the technology used to create the terminators... even if you go with the "time loop" thing, where does the technology in that first universe come from?"

Explained by virtually identical universes.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:16:20 PM

"It then repeated, the same four clips cut and edited together. Drink. Piss. Eat. sh*t. Drink piss eat sh*t drink piss eat sh*t drink piss eat sh*t drink piss eat sh*t.

You should check it out!"

God, I hope you're being facetious.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:20:57 PM

"Well, I can finally say I've found a more pretentious c*nt than either myself or Prevalent Mind."

Is there an award?

"And how do you propse to rectify the situation? How do you plan to fully explore cinema, moreso than the last century? I'm on edge waiting to hear your revolutionary ideas."

Simply by relying on the inherent features of cinema. Harmony Korine has done it, David Lynch has done it.
They did quite well in the last century, but the late comers can now explore digital and its aesthetic qualities instead of working to make it look like film.

"Duchamp died FORTY years ago. First off, inflation. 200 million back then wasn't 200 million. People got paid less, there was less wealth to pay them. They didn't have expensive CGI. They didn't have expensive sets. The guy took a urinal and called it a Fountain. CLEVER!"

It still wouldn't match 200 million. They didn't have that stuff, they had to be ... creative. Clever indeed, but he also made pure cinema.

"Ok. I'm not sure what the hell the government has to do with making films in Hollywood."

I'm not sure what public service has to do with cinema.

"Yeah, yeah, I get what you're saying. Hollywood should make art without giving a sh*t what the audiences think. Screw big budget sci-fi and action films, just make artsy crap and hope someone pays to see it. Well good luck buddy. Where I live, people like big films, not arthouse nausea. And people have to get paid for BIG films, and that means giving a sh*t what your audience thinks. And no, we typically frown on the idea of mixing government with entertainment over here, even if our government is often times unintentionally entertaining."

Just because a filmmaker doesn't hold a focus group it doesn't mean that said filmmaker will make an art film. I wouldn't want everyone making art films; I like variety and that will only come when they stop producing sh*t that similar to the last thing that was popular; like this vampire trend.





minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:34:30 PM

"Is there an award?"

No, but it's a dubious badge of distinction. That's something, right?

"Harmony Korine has done it, David Lynch has done it."

Sorry, bud, you have a point, no doubt, but I'm not paying ten or even two, bucks to see anything by them. Especially david Lynch. Why go to all that trouble, get out, pay, sit down, just to see some confusing and boring piece of film? I could do all that at home with a book. And I get to keep the book.

I mean, i get what you're saying, actors get paid to much and too much is spent on monotonous and expensive technology that doesn't bring a film any closer to greatness. But if we're going to do away with high-budget action, explosions and giant CGI robots, I'd rather stay home and read Introductory Biomechanics. I think most Americans would agree. Except for the reading part.

"I'm not sure what public service has to do with cinema."

When you say cinema, you're obviously making a deliberate categorical distintion between films like Transformers and Mullholland Drive, right? Well, socially speaking, when you want to actually make MONEY, you have to pander to the audience.

What you want is a revolution. You want to change society so that theaters feature films like Eraserhead and not GI JOE. Or even Die Hard. And that's not going to happen, bud, for the simple fact America, at least, is pluralistic and crass and very capitalistic. Main Street USA isn't Paris, France. Here, due to what I can only describe as strong market forces in combination with common denominator desires, the bigger the better. most people aren't going to pay to see Inland Empire-type films.
minkowski writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:40:12 PM

Well, I'm pretty sure Universal et al, rarely holds a focus group, but I see what you're saying, cynical as it sounds.

"I like variety and that will only come when they stop producing sh*t that similar to the last thing that was popular; like this vampire trend. "

I think there's plenty of variety if you just look. Just because it isn't on the local theater's marquee doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or is that what you're looking for?

Plenty of indie films just like your talking about. Or are you asking for larger budgets to go towards more 'thoughtful' films? I'm confused. And people WANT to see vampire films, or else they wouldn't make them, right? So they make them to make money. And that's the issue. Money over ideas and over anything else really.

"It still wouldn't match 200 million. They didn't have that stuff, they had to be ... creative. Clever indeed, but he also made pure cinema."

Sure, clever, but also goddamned boring as hell. Being clever is a gimmick, and unless you can do it for long periods of time, you've got not audience.
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 6:57:28 PM

Explained by virtually identical argument, lol.

"Sure, the first time it was made, but then, like I said, once it becomes 'mass' made it's no longer new. Think of all those cheap paitings they sell in bulk. Now, nothing creative there, right? But SOMEONE had to design the first one, and that's the creative part. Once they get mass produced, well, nothing new in that, right"

I guess one can say that Warhol showed that the minor differences in duplications made each an original. Creative, original and imaginative are words whose connotations seem to define them, rather than their definitions.

I'm guilty of absolving films that I like. Tarantino films seem to be more derivative than James Joyce's last two works, but I would be guilty of saying that both are creative.

"Yes, in a way it is, if you think of objects and ideas as PERMUTATIONS of possibilities. So in that sense, any permutation of an idea or thing is in fact new. And nature isn't creative? Billions of years of evolution producing new and varied creatures to me is vastly more 'creative' than most of all human made things."

How can I not agree with that, but although nature creates can we say it is creative? Nature is not conscious of it's process, or maybe it is, but does creativity come from the intent or an accident?


"But then again, you probably think the works of Vermeer aren't creativity because thay all share a similarity in lighting and composition."

That's debatable, but he was very skilled.

WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 7:18:31 PM

"Sorry, bud, you have a point, no doubt, but I'm not paying ten or even two, bucks to see anything by them. Especially david Lynch. Why go to all that trouble, get out, pay, sit down, just to see some confusing and boring piece of film? I could do all that at home with a book. And I get to keep the book."

Lol, well that's the part that I enjoy. I'm older and have spent too much time watching Hollywood films, so I'm aware off the formula and it becomes tedious; however, films like Inland Empire still have the proverbial "movie magic". Inland Empire is confusing when looked at linearly, but if you can see it as bending, lol, but I'm serious.

"I mean, i get what you're saying, actors get paid to much and too much is spent on monotonous and expensive technology that doesn't bring a film any closer to greatness. But if we're going to do away with high-budget action, explosions and giant CGI robots, I'd rather stay home and read Introductory Biomechanics. I think most Americans would agree. Except for the reading part."

I know everyone doesn't have my taste and if they go to the theater for entertainment, then so be it, but explosion are always done best by people who love explosions, rather than someone trying to deliver it to lovers of it.

"When you say cinema, you're obviously making a deliberate categorical distintion between films like Transformers and Mullholland Drive, right? Well, socially speaking, when you want to actually make MONEY, you have to pander to the audience."

Yeah, it's the reality and it's frightening.

"What you want is a revolution. You want to change society so that theaters feature films like Eraserhead and not GI JOE. Or even Die Hard. And that's not going to happen, bud, for the simple fact America, at least, is pluralistic and crass and very capitalistic. Main Street USA isn't Paris, France. Here, due to what I can only describe as strong market forces in combination with common denominator desires, the bigger the better. most people aren't going to pay to see Inland Empire-type films."

I loved the GI Joe-type of films when I was a child and I wouldn't want force little Jimmy and little Sue to watch Scenes from a Marriage. I just think these even Hollywood products would be better if they were made by people who loved the genre and not profiteers and panderers. You can tell when a technically horrid movie is made with love and sometimes it makes it enjoyable.
TeemSelami writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 7:22:59 PM

this guy is great if only he was able to shut mcg the f*ck up
WeThePeople writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 7:36:28 PM

"I think there's plenty of variety if you just look. Just because it isn't on the local theater's marquee doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or is that what you're looking for?

Plenty of indie films just like your talking about. Or are you asking for larger budgets to go towards more 'thoughtful' films? I'm confused. And people WANT to see vampire films, or else they wouldn't make them, right? So they make them to make money. And that's the issue. Money over ideas and over anything else really. "

I usually purchase. Indie films don't stay in the theater too long and I couldn't afford to go every other day like I use to.

Small or large, studio or indie, I just hate hearing from those who are lucky to be in the industry and not passionate about the film. If I'm passionate about something and I think it works then it stands, I wouldn't care what somebody posted on a message board. I'll watch the Bazooka Joe movie if the people involved were passionate about BJ ... ha.

"Sure, clever, but also goddamned boring as hell. Being clever is a gimmick, and unless you can do it for long periods of time, you've got not audience."

You're right; it's history now. It would be more significant if we were in the scene at the time and this guy challenged us with his grandmother's sh*tter. Even something like Un chien andalou is an artifact that the majority would care to see ... until the learned the Dali was a part of it, but at the time the general public rioted.
GIJOE was a cock garage writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 8:57:04 PM

Here's some criticism: You've got pointy knees, try and drop a couple pounds there chubs.
synthetic1985 writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 10:20:27 PM

alright....prepare your minds lol...first off, think of 'back to the future part 2'.....doc explains the original 1985 timeline....keyword, the original timeline...before time was ever able to be altered...doc explains that when him and marty somehow ended up in that alternate 1985 with biff as the casino king, it meant that without doc ever inventing that machine...none of that would have ever happened, or it all happened differently before...point is, in the first back to the future, doc invents the flux capacitor before marty ever meets him in the 1950s.....SO...taking this to the 1st terminator...the time period starts in the future in the beginning of the movie...and goes from there back to 1984 where everything was normal and is changed from then on....so now, we have an original 1984 before we see the story starting in the future, before john connor could have existed from a different father...only saying it's a possibility, but that's where i got confused when you guys say that kyle reese was already his dad because the past was already altered by the future...ok, well 1984 and then on would have had to evolve to invent those machines before skynet ever existed to be able to travel back in time in the first place, even before 1984 was already altered because it didn't happen way....it wasn't already predestined....anybody understand where i'm going here?...since it starts at the future and goes back to 1984, it changes then on...that's why i say all that stuff could have been different before the time was altered...it was never explained because well it's james cameron's idea and he went where he felt best because it was his and he has the right to do so...please correct me if i'm wrong....just trying to understand it better
thebatmanbadass writes:
on August 25th, 2009 at 11:27:36 PM

What is wrong with you guys TS was great!
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 26th, 2009 at 12:32:44 AM

TIME TRAVEL f*ckING HURTS.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on August 26th, 2009 at 12:33:02 AM

"What is wrong with you guys TS was great!"

Get out.
makingcircles writes:
on August 26th, 2009 at 10:35:27 AM

I like Sam more and more. Helluva guy.
entropyMUSE writes:
on August 27th, 2009 at 12:45:27 PM

And while reading all these comments a fat chick and a southern belle duked it out on Jerry Springer ... Time travel whaaaaaat ... ?
Johnny Neat writes:
on September 8th, 2009 at 1:46:53 PM

The guy sounds logical & grounded & at the same time he isn't at fault.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved