MovieChat Forums > hurricane > Replies
hurricane's Replies
I don't really see it to be generally in Rocky's character to trash talk opponents like that. He was played more as a likeable lug by Stallone.
In this case though, it was part of a strategy. Clubber was essentially a bully, and was exposed a bit by this. He got tired out quickly, and didn't have a plan-b. Part of him being tired out was that he was too busy swinging away, but also because he was angry at what Rocky was saying to him.
It was all calculated on Rocky's part.
Columbo was a bit longer.
Monk I'd say, was more of a light-hearted show than some detective shows. There is a sadness to the character, but there's a lot of humour in the show too.
It's not as much of a follow the clues sort of a show either, it's more about the characters and the humour. The length feels fine to me.
He did have a GCSE in art.
Mainly, because he wasn't the main character. That was Ted, as the story was told from his perspective, not Barney's.
You could argue that NPH wasn't the biggest star when the show started either. It was kind of his break out role, whereas Alyson Hannigan was already known from Buffy and The American Pie movies amongst other things.
Depends how you define "value for money". Spending $10k to post a letter isn't technically.
But, as you say, he pais the going rate.
On the grounds of value for money, the stamp should've disqualified him. As he could've posted a letter for a lot less money.
It's just a movie. Got to go with it.
Yeah, they sort of ignored that bit.
Probably makes the film clunky if with every purchase, they evaluate whether it is value for money.
That rule was only really put in, so he won't go out and offer somebody the entire amount for one hour's work.
I don't think the problem was Batgirl, per se.
For me, it was the fact that they got rid of the cliffhanger endings, which was always the most enjoyable part of it. Wondering how Batman was gonna get out of it this week.
I get that they were trying to go in a different direction to help with ratings. But, adding a new character to an established show will always be a risk, and even more so when you're moving the traditional two parters to one-parters at the same time that you're adding the new character. Just seemed that there was too much going on in each episode, and it felt cluttered.
They had experimented with doing episodes with two guest villains, and making them three-parters rather than two. Maybe if they'd have kept doing that, it might've been a better way of bringing Batgirl in, rather than including her and trying to set up a whole new story every episode.
I liked how he used to spring Murdock out of the hospital every week, and didn't really have any other disguise other than putting on a white coat.
Didn't the staff realise it was the sam guy scamming him out every week?
Yeah, I've always wondered what the point of that experiment was.
Surely setting a bunch of clocks to the same time isn't that difficult? It'd require a lot of patience, I suppose. Because who could be bothered to set dozens of clocks back to the wrong time? But I never got why Doc would want to do that.
They did all chime the hour at the exact same time, so they are all syncronised to the exact second. Which, I guess is the difficult part. So, maybe something to do with that. But, why bother? What does it achieve?
I have this on DVD, and theu removed the Phantom Of The Mall bit from the title. The cover just calls it Eric's Revenge. I didn't know it's full title, until I watched the film.
Eric's Revenge was intriguing enough for me to buy it, I guess.
A couple have been watchable, without being brilliant. A lot were just guff.
What I like about this one is they don't really tell you anything about the family. You don't even know their names. Sometimes the unknown is scarier and more sinister.
I don't think he was supposed to be sympathetic. He was meant to be annoying.
I think Carey was perfectly cast as Lloyd.
I don't really see anybody else as playing him.
She was about to give him her number, but then changed her mind when witnessing his buffoonery.
The second time she appeared, she wasn't actually accusing him of not calling. She was just introducing herself, or giving herself a big reveal, in a glib way. Instead of saying; "Hey, Harry. Yeah, it's me. The woman from the gas station who nearly gave you her number. Guess what? I'm involved in all of this...."
They're not all like Columbo, where you see the murder straight away, and then Columbo turns up to solve it.
Very Slight Spoilers. Sometimes it's really obvious who committed the murder, and it's more about Monk solving it. Other times, you don't find out who did it until the end. It's a very unusual case, and only Monk has the capablities to solve it.
I like both Monk and Columbo, so I say go for it.
As a child? Yes. The campy humour of it was a bit wasted on me, because I just enjoyed the adventure element of it.
Obviously, watching it as an adult, you can see a lot of it was very tounge in cheek. But, in my opinion, that makes it more enjoyable.
Sometimes it's better to end a show without a proper ending.
Shows that build to a specific ending often disappoint. Especially if the ending wasn't what you're expecting or wanting.
And a show like this doesn't really need an ending. What would they have done? Killing off Batman And Robin was out of the question. So, what else could you do? Have Batman retire and pass the baton over to Robin? Probably better to not have a specific end, and know that B&R are still out there defending the Gotham City.
Besides, the show felt like it was getting a bit stale towards the end. Getting rid of the cliffhanger endings didn't help, because they were the best bit of it. Introducing Batgirl, and having one-episode story felt like it made the story too cluttered. Especially when they had more than one villain per episode.
Originally, the movie was supposed to end with Nancy waking up to find everybody alive, and realising the whole thing had been a dream. The Nightmare On Elm Street was supposed to be that Nancy had a nightmare about a dream stalker called Fred Krueger, who didn't actually exist. He was completely fictitious in her nightmare. The studio changed the script slightly, so there was the opportunity for a sequel. So, what we ended on was a tacked on ending, where Freddy inexplicably came back to life, killed Nancy's mother, and drove Nancy and her friends off to an undetermined fate.
If you had the ending the way it was originally scripted, it makes sense that Freddy's powers were slightly inconistent, because that's how dreams are. Inconsistent and illogical.
The ending we got, didn't make much sense in the context of the story, and made Nancy turning her back on Freddy meaningless.
Sometimes, people who are called Edward have their name shortened to Ted as well.
So, techinically his name could be Edward Theodore Logan.