A Kingdom Hearts movie would be awesome. But probably would be dumbed down to a stupid Disney movie eventually.

I was surprised to see a nipple and breast in the opening of RE. But honestly I wasn't surprised at all with the butt shot in TR. For some reason writers and directors think that getting the attractive actress in the movie nude will help get the movie to sell. I bought RE and TR and both MKs for the storyline and action (since I'm a huge RE and MK fan and only played TR sparingly).

Did I ever say Starcraft was an actual film? And why would a company work on two movies of it's games at once?

Yeah, it's called "sex sells." IMHO, if a movie is all that great to begin with, it shouldn't need sex to sell it.

I've never understood why some people have this bizzar aversion to seeing movies alone. I enjoy movies better alone (at a theatre, at least). That way, I'm not tempted to talk, and I can just sit back and enjoy it.

You're kidding, right? Starcraft's story is laughable at best. It has literally no depth. Sometimes, it doesn't even make sense. Indeed, the most interesting characters are Zerg (in particular, the Overmind); that alone says much about the quality of StarCraft's story.

MK 1 had a good story, and nice action (who could forget Johnny Cage vs Scorpion?).. MK 2 just plain out-righted sucked, though. It had some nice action, but that was outweighed by extremely poor acting, cast changes, and a bad script (Shao Kahn is Raiden's brother? come on people), They never even properly explained how they were able to get to Earth (in the game it was because Shao Kahn was looking for his Wife, Sindel.. in the movie it was because they just felt like breaking the rules (and those "temporary passes"? jesus h. christ..)). And let's not forget those Animalities that were thrown in to try and impress us with unnecessary CG.

I would attribute the suckyness of MK:A to the change in director.. who was the lighting director in the first movie. It could've been so much better if they kept Paul Anderson.

Sex honestly doesn't sell to me in the movie department. If I see a movie with a half naked chick on the cover, I'll need to look into it before I watch it. I didn't see the first RE in theatres, but I saw the second because the first was good.

Same thing with games.

If I want soft core porn, I'll get off my ass and buy some soft core porn.

[edit: oh dear god, the filter really made that sound funny. I'll leave it. ]

Kill Bill baffles me. What's the appeal? It's just an ugly woman (yes, Uma Thurman is ugly. Butt ugly. Come on, look at her!) in a yellow jumpsuit hitting people a lot. It's like the Matrix without all the good futurustic special effects and New Age mumbo-jumbo.

Kill Bill was also some sort of parody, as I gather. The yellow suit is meant to be a riff on Bruce Lee or something. I dunno; it's not my genre and I haven't seen either movie. It's just my understanding that the movie rocks less from being "good" and more from having exceptional camera work, paying homage to this movie or that, etc.

I agree with the distinguished gentlemen to my left, with regard to their opinions on Kill Bill.

Hahaha! I am very sleepy right now, and for some reason, that makes my belly ache.

I always thought Uma looked somewhat unusual, but certainly not ugly, and she looks pretty hot in the Kill Bills (especially when in training with Pei Mai) which, as the killer bunny said, rock.

I think its because many people perversely see going to the cinema as a social event (why else would you sit in the dark silently for an hour or two, if not to socialise?). I myself usually go to the cinemas solo, and prefer it that way.

Oh cheesus. That reminds me. Me and my friend went to see Shark Tale. It is in no way a kids movie. There is no bad content or anything. But picture this. There are a bunch of 5-year-olds and there 50-year-old parents. All of the jokes are parodies of MTV movies and stuff like that So me and my friend were the ONLY people laughing the whole time.