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

Full-Length "Clash of the Titans" Trailer Officially Released

Posted: December 17th, 2009 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Full-Length "Clash of the Titans" Trailer Officially ReleasedSubmit Comment
The full-length trailer for "Clash of the Titans" leaked online a few days ago. We posted it, but Warner Bros quickly took it down. That trailer has now been officially released. If you haven't previously seen it, check it out below.

Plot: Born of a god but raised as a man, Perseus (Sam Worthington) is helpless to save his family from Hades (Ralph Fiennes), vengeful god of the underworld. With nothing left to lose, Perseus volunteers to lead a dangerous mission to defeat Hades before he can seize power from Zeus (Liam Neeson) and unleash hell on earth. Leading a daring band of warriors, Perseus sets off on a perilous journey deep into forbidden worlds. Battling unholy demons and fearsome beasts, he will only survive if he can accept his power as a god, defy his fate and create his own destiny.

The film is directed by Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk) and is scheduled to hit theaters on March 26th, 2010.

Trailer:

If you cannot see the player, click here.


Click here to read more about "Clash of the Titans."

Source: Apple


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 71 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
TRUEMAN writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 8:46:35 AM

f*ck SAM W. HE IS SUCKING SOOO MUCH IN THIS FILM! DIEEEEEE go and star doing your real work WALE HORSE!
TRUEMAN writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 8:49:57 AM

HE is not just a man HE JUST A GAY!!! f*ck SAM W. you sucks this movie!
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 8:58:28 AM

I'm actually more psyched about this movie, than Iron Man 2
Bigcheese writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:17:13 AM

Same here Freudian
Derp88 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:35:39 AM

Trueman wants Sam Worthington's spunk all over his face
SeWerin writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:45:20 AM

"Damn the gods!" - badass!!!
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 9:58:45 AM

f*cking Pirates of the Caribbean prequel.
jdl107 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:00:02 AM

I hate that supposed-to-be-badass shot of him walking up to the camera and grabbing the sword. Sooo-f*cking-lame.
Bigcheese writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:01:02 AM

WeThePeople

Pirates has got nothing on this.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:05:56 AM

Bigcheese

They're both trite, but at least Pirate's had a transexual Captain ... well, Clash has Sam Worthington. So, they both have transexuals.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:19:08 AM

"f*cking Pirates of the Caribbean prequel"

- WHAT??? A Disney movie? Compared to one of the few remakes that actually made sense making???

This movie takes advantage of today's technology to put on screen some bad-ass monsters.
The original one, in 1981, used stop motion animation.
Makes sense to remake the story now, since the modern version can certainly benefit from the CGI.

Was it the Kraken that led you to make such a preposterous statement?
Because the Kraken was already in the original, 28 years ago, waaay before Disney came up with lame make-up wearin' pirates.
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:35:38 AM

We the people what the f*ck is your deal with transsexuals? Are you really that gay?
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:52:24 AM

"- WHAT??? A Disney movie? Compared to one of the few remakes that actually made sense making???"
I don't see how it made sense.

"This movie takes advantage of today's technology to put on screen some bad-ass monsters.
The original one, in 1981, used stop motion animation.
Makes sense to remake the story now, since the modern version can certainly benefit from the CGI."

This movie takes advantage of an awesome title and and good script.

That's like saying brunettes can certainly benefit by going blonde. I happen to prefer stop motion. There's nothing wrong with it. It displayed the filmmakers ingenuity. I'll give the remake one thing and that's the costume designs.

"Was it the Kraken that led you to make such a preposterous statement?
Because the Kraken was already in the original, 28 years ago, waaay before Disney came up with lame make-up wearin' pirates."

Of course it was. A minor link is all you need to throw tomatoes.
Bigcheese writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:53:11 AM

Pirates had 2 trans - Orlando Bloom
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:55:33 AM

jeffw1978

Being transexual doesn't mean you're gay.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:56:13 AM

Bigcheese

Bloom was a tranny?! I thought he was just a bitch.
Bigcheese writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 11:00:20 AM

He's both.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 11:05:32 AM

"Of course it was. A minor link is all you need to throw tomatoes."

- I'm not yet sure how slow and thick you actually are. Yesterday you had some trouble taking in one simple concept.
Breaking things down to you, at this point, seems more appropriate.

Also, the "minor link" would have forced you to read 3 to 17 pages, depending on the links I could have provided, so what you need to do, is to thank me for showing you how off your comparison/analogy/movie reference was, and then leave it at that.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 11:15:51 AM

"- I'm not yet sure how slow and thick you actually are."
Like molasses.

"Yesterday you had some trouble taking in one simple concept."

I would say it was the other way around.

"Breaking things down to you, at this point, seems more appropriate.

Also, the "minor link" would have forced you to read 3 to 17 pages, depending on the links I could have provided, so what you need to do, is to thank me for showing you how off your comparison/analogy/movie reference was, and then leave it at that."

I guess the Borgesian irony was lost on you.
If you think my reference was off, I think you would have a laugh at an Armond White review.
victor arroyo writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 11:17:21 AM

@WeThePeople:

hahaha lol...

But dude, please do not compare Greek Mythology to a Disney movie (Story/Disney Ride)

The Perseus's story is great, maybe in the movie is not that accurate, but It'll make an awesome movie.

Clash of the Titans is a classic, and like P.P. said "remakes that actually made sense making"


PEACE!

WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 11:27:46 AM

victor arroyo
You're right. Greek mythology should have an order of protection against Disney, but the Kraken has nothing to do with Greek Mythology.
victor arroyo writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 11:32:46 AM

"The Perseus's story is great, maybe in the movie is not that accurate, but It'll make an awesome movie."


victor arroyo writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 11:37:56 AM

"Greek mythology should have an order of protection against Disney"

Greek mythology should have an order of protection.



Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 11:43:23 AM

"Like molasses"

- No. More like steamy sh*t.

"I would say it was the other way around"

- Yeah, because you sure taught me about the meaning of the word "target" right?
There, that was irony for you. Take that one in.

So ok, you still don't get it. That clears out the "thick and slow" part.
I now know and I'll treat you accordingly.

"I guess the Borgesian irony was lost on you"

- It only became irony for you after you looked it up and realized what a f*ck up you had done, comparing a kiddy movie to Greek Mythology.
You're trying to turn tables now. Basic move. Doesn't work here, since your first comment is still up there and you can't change it now.

"I think you would have a laugh at an Armond White review"

- White does make me laugh at times. More often than not, he's an idiot swimming against the current, trying to prove has does have an opinion and some sort good taste for movies, and not realizing the obvious.
Much like yourself in this particular case. Yesterday was also a very good example too.
So yeah, I can see why you would think of him.
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 12:14:37 PM

I don't mind the greeks borrow the Kraken, as long as they use him well. But I must say, by judging the Kraken after its looks (I'm a shallow bastard), I prefer the Pirates-version.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 12:16:21 PM

"No. More like steamy sh*t."

Lol. The steam should soften the stool.

"Yeah, because you sure taught me about the meaning of the word "target" right?
There, that was irony for you. Take that one in."

Not everyone can be taught, but your learning. Yesterday you attempted to prove that the author's intention trumps social usage. More simply put: personal usage can not be criticized by an outsiders opinion. Now you are attempting to prove that you can in fact criticize my personal usage.

"It only became irony for you after you looked it up and realized what a f*ck up you had done, comparing a kiddy movie to Greek Mythology.
You're trying to turn tables now. Basic move. Doesn't work here, since your first comment is still up there and you can't change it now."

Again: I guess the Borgesian irony was lost on you. That in fact is the irony.

A "kiddy" movie to Greek mythology? You do understand that the ancient Greeks told these stories to their children. Don't let American censorship cloud your reasoning. I'd hate to see your criticism on the use of similes and metaphors in poetry.

"White does make me laugh at times. More often than not, he's an idiot swimming against the current, trying to prove has does have an opinion and some sort good taste for movies, and not realizing the obvious.
Much like yourself in this particular case."

Again: I would say it was the other way around.



ozymandiass writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 12:48:06 PM

@ Peter Parker , dude your the only one on here that seems to make sense. Your statement about how it makes sense to remake this movie was dead on. I also wanted to say that I loved how in the trailer at 1:20 they blended the music with the giant scorpian hitting the ground with his tail.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 12:53:25 PM

Again, trying to turn tables. Not gonna work.
Deep down you know your rambling yesterday about the word "target" was a bad idea. You were clearly proven wrong.

In case you lost your memory, here's what you said after being explained like you were an infant:

"Satisfied"

So, you weren't after all? Want some links to dictionaries now?

"The steam should soften the stool."

- No. The steam wouldn't be a part of the stool, since it was evaporating and it wouldn't be in it anymore! Duh!
Still thick.

"Again: I guess the Borgesian irony was lost on you. That in fact is the irony"

- Again right back at you. Your initial comparison arose from your ignorance towards the derivation of the "Clash of the Titans" original story.
You complained about my long explanation why you shouldn't compare the two movies.
You said it yourself, a simple link would have been enough for you to understand, since you obviously had no knowledge of it before.

The real irony is that you're now doing exactly the same thing as yesterday, going back and forth with weak argumentation to try and prove your first statement on this thread wasn't erroneous, when you've proven my point with your own words already.

What you wrote proves you weren't using irony.
You got yourself into a discussion about a movie whose origins you knew nothing about. That is, in fact, what happened.
You were just ignorant.

But the problem now is that you lack the backbone to be upfront and honest, and say that you were wrong.
By all means, keep it up. Keep trying to make excuses to disguise what you didn't know, and refuse to accept now.
Your own previous posts here prove you wrong.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 1:00:22 PM

@ ozymandiass:

I know how you feel, man. I'm pretty pumped for this one as well.
Watching that trailer makes me feel like I'm 15 again. lol

I'm a sucker for a good action movie and I'm crossing my fingers for this one not to disappoint.

The original, when it came out, was amazing. Warner Bros have big shoes to fill with this remake, but they've certainly got my attention.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 1:16:54 PM

I wrote satisfied in response to minkowski's post:
"In any case, it was Alex's choice to use the word target, and as synonym to the word goal, it is technically accurate while perhaps not the best choice. End of story."

"No. The steam wouldn't be a part of the stool, since it was evaporating and it wouldn't be in it anymore! Duh!
Still thick."

Kind of the same approached I used to comment on the use of target.

"Again right back at you. Your initial comparison arose from your ignorance towards the derivation of the "Clash of the Titans" original story."

Um ... no. Do you know how to read?

"You complained about my long explanation why you shouldn't compare the two movies.
You said it yourself, a simple link would have been enough for you to understand, since you obviously had no knowledge of it before."

I wrote a simple link is enough to throw tomatoes. How did you derive understand from tomatoes? I'm not sure how it was obvious. You assume quite a bit. You are very similar to Armond White. How could have a preference for the original and its use of stop motion, if I haven't seen it?

"What you wrote proves you weren't using irony."

I didn't say I was using irony. I wrote that, "I guess the Borgesian irony was lost on you." Do you need me to explain what that is?

"You got yourself into a discussion about a movie whose origins you knew nothing about. That is, in fact, what happened.
You were just ignorant."

The convictions of your assumptions proves your blissful ignorance.

"But the problem now is that you lack the backbone to be upfront and honest, and say that you were wrong.
By all means, keep it up. Keep trying to make excuses to disguise what you didn't know, and refuse to accept now.
Your own previous posts here prove you wrong."

What a tangle web you weave.


Popcorn101 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 1:31:23 PM

trueman f*ck off, your one of the few who dont like sam worthington on here, this movie looks awesome, and im with you freudian..im more psyched for this than iron man
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 1:32:56 PM

"What a tangle web you weave"

No. It's simple to most people.
The problem is that you're just an ignorant retard in denial.
End of story.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 1:38:49 PM

"No. It's simple to most people.
The problem is that you're just an ignorant retard in denial."
Your strongest argument yet.

"End of story."
Satisfied.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:13:02 PM

"'No. It's simple to most people.
The problem is that you're just an ignorant retard in denial.'
Your strongest argument yet."

- No. That wasn't an argument, that was me classifying you. Different things.

To clarify your confused little mind, my strongest argument yet was:
"Your own previous posts here prove you wrong"

All your subsequential posts on here were nothing but made-up bullsh*t, weak attempts at doing damage control.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:18:28 PM

"End of story."

You have a very petty mind. Where is your backbone?
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:25:17 PM

"You have a very petty mind."

- What? Are you pissed you can't win?

"Where is your backbone"

- On your mother's bed. My front bone is in her ass.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:26:02 PM

With all the random comments on these boars, I wonder why you have chosen me as your "target".

I stand by what I posted. You may understand them after you reach an adult reading level.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:31:51 PM

Winning and losing is for primitives. Comprehension, for both parties, is what I aspire to.

I would never be pissed about a discussion on films, or an exchange that doesn't involve physical harm.

"On your mother's bed. My front bone is in her ass."
Lol.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:47:54 PM

"With all the random comments on these boars, I wonder why you have chosen me as your "target"."

- Don't flatter yourself. I disagreed twice with things you wrote. I decided to prove my point. That was it.

"I stand by what I posted"

- That means you're stubborn and won't admit to a mistake. Two, actually, counting yesterday's.

"You may understand them after you reach an adult reading level"

- Wait...

...

(wait)

...

...

There, I've reached the level. I went back and read what you said and I now understand it.

Here's what I've concluded: You didn't know what you were talking about.
ozymandiass writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:53:07 PM

@peter parker. yeah I really hope its good. But I can't recall the last time I didn't enjoy Liam Neeson kciking ass..
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:54:29 PM

"Winning and losing is for primitives. Comprehension, for both parties, is what I aspire to"

- Bullsh*t. You STILL can't admit your comparison/metaphor/movie reference was completely off.

If comprehension was what you aspire to, this discussion would have ended after my first reply to you.
You would have realized what I was talking about and you would have comprehended.

What you're doing is being stubborn, plain and simple.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:54:31 PM

"Winning and losing is for primitives. Comprehension, for both parties, is what I aspire to"

- Bullsh*t. You STILL can't admit your comparison/metaphor/movie reference was completely off.

If comprehension was what you aspire to, this discussion would have ended after my first reply to you.
You would have realized what I was talking about and you would have comprehended.

What you're doing is being stubborn, plain and simple.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 2:59:46 PM

@ ozy:

"I can't recall the last time I didn't enjoy Liam Neeson kciking ass"

I definitely agree! Just thinking of his roles in "Taken" and "Batman Begins" makes me want to watch those movies right now, just because of his flawless performance.

I think he'll be great in "Clash of the Titans", and maybe even greater in "The A-Team". Can't wait!!
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 3:03:24 PM

"You didn't know what you were talking about."

That means you're stubborn and won't admit to a mistake.

"Two, actually, counting yesterday's."

Yesterday's comment was definitely debatable, but today's comment is all together different. It's only right that you defend this movie, since you have such a hard on for it. You're ready to worship at the alter that is Clash of the Titan (2010) and I think it's trite and CGI is no justification for a remake. Owning the property and wanting to capitalize off it is.

Is justification even necessary? The original will always exist, figuratively of course, whether there's one or ten remakes.
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 3:09:26 PM

"If comprehension was what you aspire to, this discussion would have ended after my first reply to you."

If you comprehended the first post, you would have never replied.

"I definitely agree! Just thinking of his roles in "Taken" and "Batman Begins" makes me want to watch those movies right now, just because of his flawless performance."

Those are the roles that stood out to you; it all makes sense now.
murphyslaw93 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 3:22:29 PM

This is gonna be so sick, Sam Worthington should be good the role seems to fit him, and Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes as gods!...the casting director deserves an Oscar, just brilliant. The Iron Man 2 trailer was pretty cool (looks a lot more impressive and worth while than the first) but Clash of the Titans looks insane, good thing i dont have to wait as long for this as for Iron Man 2.
IShitOnMovies writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 3:30:31 PM

Epic sh*t!
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 3:38:04 PM

Turning tables again. You're predictable.

"Yesterday's comment was definitely debatable"

- Still stubborn, still in denial. There is no real debate there, the word "target" was well employed. Give it up.

"since you have such a hard on for it. You're ready to worship at the alter that is Clash of the Titan (2010)"

- Not really. I'm definitely excited to see what they can make with it, yes, but I'm not ready nor willing to start a cult over it.

"I think it's trite and CGI is no justification for a remake.

- The trailer was exciting, they've gathered up a good cast, looks like an entertaining movie. Seems like they had justification enough to remake it.
The CGI provides added value that the original didn't benefit from.
It's pretty safe to assume that they didn't go up to Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes and said:

"Hey guys, we want you in a movie because it'll have some really cool CGI!"

To remake the original, Warner Bros must have had a solid project to work with, that was interesting enough to bring talented and established actors on board. That's common sense.

"Owning the property and wanting to capitalize off it is."

- Yeah, capitalist countries tend to do that. Kinda makes the economy go around, you see?
Again, as long as it's done properly, nothing wrong with that.

"Is justification even necessary? The original will always exist, figuratively of course, whether there's one or ten remakes"

- Are we playing "State The Obvious" now?

Dude, I don't approve all the remakes that are coming out now or the ones in production. However, this specific one looks good, for the reasons above stated.

I still don't think you knew what you were talking about when you compared it to "Pirates of the Caribbean". The only thing you had to hang on to was the Kraken.
Apart from that one monster and a few visual details, both things have nothing to do with each other.

You can't prove you were being ironic with the comparison. The statements you made after reinforce the idea you weren't.

Unless you have something new to add to that, you should drop your futile battle and admit that your comparison was misconceived.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 3:44:02 PM

"Those are the roles that stood out to you; it all makes sense now."

- Yeah, that was at ozy, dumbass, and we were talking specifically about action movies where Liam Neeson kicked ass.
You can't even understand the context of a simple conversation like that.

Idiot.
BondMcClane007 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 3:49:53 PM

now y did i think the kraken would end up being a squid.. that didnt look like a squid
WeThePeople writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 4:23:01 PM

"The CGI provides added value"
Your opinion.

"Yeah, capitalist countries tend to do that. Kinda makes the economy go around, you see?"

Are we playing "State The Obvious" now?

"Again, as long as it's done properly, nothing wrong with that."

Whether it's done by your standards of "properly" has no real bearing on the matter. The own the rights and the can do with it what they please.

"I still don't think you knew what you were talking about when you compared it to "Pirates of the Caribbean"."

Yeah, it's safe to say you should leave thinking to us adults. At least until you learn how to.

"The only thing you had to hang on to was the Kraken.
Apart from that one monster and a few visual details, both things have nothing to do with each other."

See, I wasn't even taking the few visual details into account. You read too deep into it. I don't see you getting invited to the pub often. The both have the Kraken, yes. They are both action-adventure epics. The Kraken, like vampires, is just a stock creature.

"You can't prove you were being ironic with the comparison. The statements you made after reinforce the idea you weren't."

Once again: I never wrote that I was being ironic. Do you know how Borgesian irony works? It has nothing to do with intention. It's comparable to calling Tristram Shandy and post-modern novel. You get it?

"Yeah, that was at ozy, dumbass, and we were talking specifically about action movies where Liam Neeson kicked ass."

I was commenting on the article, dumbass, but you replied to my post. It's kind of how this works, you see?

But your particular interest was his "flawless performance".

Liam Neeson also "kicks-ass" in The Big Man.






IShitOnMovies writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 4:31:58 PM

Would you two faggots shut your sh*t holes already. You're both idiots.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 5:00:05 PM

"Are we playing "State The Obvious" now?"

- You are. I'm playing "Making You Look Ignorant".

"Whether it's done by your standards of "properly" has no real bearing on the matter. The own the rights and the can do with it what they please"

- See? You're playing "State The Obvious". I keep playing "Making You Look Ignorant".

"Yeah, it's safe to say you should leave thinking to us adults. At least until you learn how to"

- You used the adult card already. You're boring. There, I just played "Making You Look Ignorant" again.

"See, I wasn't even taking the few visual details into account."

- Of course you weren't. You made a comparison between "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Clash of the Titans" out of sheer ignorance.

"You read too deep into it."

- I'm also f*cking you too deep into it.

"I don't see you getting invited to the pub often."

- Whores get invited to pubs. Ask your mother.

"The both have the Kraken, yes. They are both action-adventure epics. The Kraken, like vampires, is just a stock creature""

- I see you've missed playing "State The Obvious". I'll just keep on playing "Making You Look Ignorant".

- "Once again: I never wrote that I was being ironic. Do you know how Borgesian irony works? It has nothing to do with intention. It's comparable to calling Tristram Shandy and post-modern novel. You get it?"

- Borgesian irony acts as an element of deferral. Your pathetic comparison didn't defer sh*t. It just made an allusion. You get it?
I'm enjoying this "Making You Look Ignorant" game.

- "I was commenting on the article, dumbass, but you replied to my post. It's kind of how this works, you see?"

This is what you commented on:
"I definitely agree! Just thinking of his roles in "Taken" and "Batman Begins" makes me want to watch those movies right now, just because of his flawless performance."

I wrote that, it wasn't in the article.
Now I'm playing "Making You Look Incoherent"

"Liam Neeson also "kicks-ass" in The Big Man"

- You're back to playing "State The Obvious".

You're still just an ignorant in denial.
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 5:15:06 PM

"jeffw1978

Being transexual doesn't mean you're gay."

Wanting to be the opposite sex because you want to f*ck a person of the same sex as you makes it pretty f*cking gay. I don't buy into the whole gentetics is why I am gay or I was born that way. Bullsh*t if you are a guy and you want c*ck it is just that you want it. it is a choice. So dressing like a chick or becoming one to get the c*ck I consider it gay.
IShitOnMovies writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 5:16:28 PM

LMAO!

"Borgesian irony acts as an element of deferral. Your pathetic comparison didn't defer sh*t. It just made an allusion. You get it?"

You're pretty dim. The allusion was in my first post and the Borgesian irony developed out of your ranting. I never wrote that it was contained in my first post.

"I wrote that, it wasn't in the article."

I didn't write that it was. I originally thought that you might have been operating with reason, but nothing you wrote was relevant. You're obviously not reading my post. You're reading into them with that single-minded eye. I think I found the forum idiot. I hope your vaginal rash of a mother is proud of the cyclops she produced.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 5:37:47 PM

@ Ish*tOnMovies and WeThePeople (since you're the same idiot):

What a f*ck up you just did, uh?
Having two accounts to try and look like you have friends or someone who actually buys the bullsh*t you say. Nice move, retard.

You're so confused right now, that you can't even think of the right account to post from.

You are a cowardly ignorant f*ck who lacks the knowledge or character to stand up for your argumentation in an intelligent way.

I just found one of the forum's cowardly retards.

What a f*cking joke you've turned out to be.
Dre-EL writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 5:50:15 PM

This looks like a kick ass ride
jasonp writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 6:36:41 PM

is it my imagination or does the Kraken look like jedi Kraken
SACdaddy writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 7:02:49 PM

This looks so much better than that Prince of Persia crap. I was a big fan of the original, sh*tty stopmotion and all. With the CGI today finally a good myth can finally become a great movie.

The Craken looks pretty badass!
Eben1277 writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 8:24:27 PM

Where the f*ck is the red devil guy with the pitchfork hand!!!!????!!!!????
BrandoFresh writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 10:11:07 PM

Holy sh*t...
Mudders writes:
on December 17th, 2009 at 11:40:14 PM

f*ckin awesome....nuff said!!!
Joker1282 writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 10:40:31 AM

@WeThePeople !!Peter Parker is right you are dushh-bag.
damn why im i always late !
bacci40 writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 2:46:42 PM

i liked this site much better when no one commented

you guys are all aicn rejects
Peter Parker writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 3:37:21 PM

@ bacci40:

"i liked this site much better when no one commented"

- Which says a lot about your capacity and willingness for open debate. Ignorant f*cks tend to think that way.

You ain't in Kansas anymore, bitch!

Your complaint comes from the fact that you have nothing interesting nor relevant to participate with.

You're nothing but a whining ignorant bitch.
Long Rod VonHugendong writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 3:38:49 PM

I watched the Original last night, I forgot how good it was, Im really pumped for this, Sam looks Badass in this, and it looks a little better than the claymation stopmotion that was used in the orignal, But it worked for the orignal, This movie has me more excited than Iron man 2 I agree w/ you Freudian
Joker1282 writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 4:48:31 PM

@peter tell his irrogant A*&% !! f*ck face
bacci40
bacci40 writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 7:39:37 PM

Peter Parker

care to explain to me how starting a flame war on every f*cking thread is "meaningful participation"?

at least comment on the f*cking movie

btw, the stop action effects of the original are soooo much better than all this cgi sh*te
Peter Parker writes:
on December 18th, 2009 at 8:56:20 PM

Sure, Bacci:

Let's see...

"care to explain to me how starting a flame war on every f*cking thread is "meaningful participation"?"

- That one is pretty much self-explanatory, but I'll break it down for you.

First, the number of discussions one gets himself involved in has no relevance whatsoever.
It only means the person has an opinion on a specific subject, or is wondering about other people's opinions.

What you consider a "flame war", others see it as "discussion". The tone of the discussion may vary, depending on the participants and the subject at hand, but it is still just a discussion.

When you start a discussion, one that is open to all participants, where you analyze other people's views on a specific subject, and then develop the discussion into the various ramifications it may have, then you can call it "meaningful participation", on the discussion, that is.

You would know nothing about that, since you prefer to have some sort of delimitation on the number of participants, probably to have less folks disagreeing with you. Or maybe you just don't appreciate reading.
Or maybe you're just an *sshole.

Now YOU tell me how debating over the articles, regardless of the number of debates one decides to participate in, can be anything BUT "meaningful participation".

Also, YOU tell me how having less people commenting, contributes for the purpose of a forum.

FYI: Forum - a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
b. A public meeting place for open discussion.
c. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.
2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
3. A court of law; a tribunal.

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forum)

"at least comment on the f*cking movie"

- Why? Because you say so? Because you're so interested on other people's opinions about the movies?
You said it yourself, you liked it when nobody was commenting.
So why the f*ck do you care if the comments are on the movies, on the weather, or on the incestuous relations that go on in your family?

If you don't care about comments at all, than the subjects commented on should be of no concern to you either.

"the stop action effects of the original are soooo much better than all this cgi sh*te"

- Yes, the stop-motion animation was good and revolutionary when the original came out.

Regardless, the CGI displayed in the trailer seems to be of very good quality, from what could be seen so far.
I can give it the benefit of the doubt, since I haven't seen the movie yet, but the results seen in the trailer are nothing short of spectacular.

Stop-motion animation and CGI are two completely different things.
The effect created by clay action figures cannot be compared to the one of monsters created by the some of the most advanced visual effects software that exists today.

There's almost 30 years of evolution between the two things.

And you're an idiot if you really think that was "cgi sh*te".

Now I'd like to see you proving me that I figured you out all wrong and you're not just a whining ignorant bitch.
bale01289 writes:
on December 19th, 2009 at 10:41:37 AM

I think this movie is gonna be awsome! Love love love the original. Mư question is where is Kalibos? Maybe they forgot about him, lol! And just to chime in on the subject, PeterParker, you're a funny bastard! And TRUMAN, you're a f*ckin toolbag! Go throw yourself into oncoming traffic, please.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 19th, 2009 at 2:42:05 PM

Thanks, Bale! (I think?)

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

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

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

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

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

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

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

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond
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