Pathfinder-OH MY GOD...

[Mike70]

maybe the worst, most travestical, craptacular, buttastic piece of cinematic dog sheyat i have EVER had the misfortune to lay eyes upon. this movie is so insultingly bad and historically inaccurate that it almost boggles the mind. i thought the MP coming out the time vortex with a machine during the battle of troy in time tunnel was bad. i thought that 300 was horrible in the historical sense-it is, there's no doubt about that. but pathfinder has reached all time lows.

the vikings are little more than orcs in this film. people incapable of dressing in anything other than black and incapable of any sort of human behavior/feeling other than deriving joy from the infliction of pain. the beauty and power of norse culture is totally ignored. they are simply out for torture and murder-for the sake of torture and murder.

maybe they should've read and paid attention to the vinland sagas (the history of the viking exploration of north america). i guess that the reasons the norse ventured to north america (simple curiosity about what was to the west of greenland and the need for timber) were too bland in this day and age where everything must carry some sort of socio-political subcontext.

horrible. horrible. horrible. if i ever meet the morons who perpetrated this piece of trash i am going to kick them in the balls-twice.

[AcesandEights]

Poor vikings. The only people who like them are white or historians or fantasists or members of the white power movement or a whole crapload of other people.

But enough editorializing on my part, did you like the movie?

[Mike70]

dude viking culture is hella interesting. the literature and poetry they produced is awesome. their shipbuilding and navigation skills were way ahead of their time. in addition, their language and culture has influenced just about every country in northern europe.

i am white and a historian (albeit one trained in the classical world).

[Danny]

Poor vikings. The only people who like them are white or historians or fantasists or members of the white power movement or a whole crapload of other people.


and metal bands like turisas or dragonforce mind;)

[bassman]

I thought the trailer made it pretty obvious that the film would be crap.....

Didn't you get the memo?
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/gallery/2005/06/13/hauer3.jpg

[AcesandEights]

dude viking culture is hella interesting. the literature and poetry they produced is awesome. their shipbuilding and navigation skills were way ahead of their time. in addition, their language and culture has influenced just about every country in northern europe.


Thanks for the rundown on some things I was already aware of ;)

[Mike70]

I thought the trailer made it pretty obvious that the film would be crap.....

Didn't you get the memo?
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/gallery/2005/06/13/hauer3.jpg

foolishly i had to see for myself.

[Danny]

Thanks for the rundown on some things I was already aware of ;)

whilst i knew this as well it may surprise you taht were not a hive mind species and some people may not.


well there are people in the south that think dinosaurs were dragons so....

[Mike70]

well there are people in the south that think dinosaurs were dragons so....

are you...are you telling me there's no such thing as dragons?:(

[Danny]

*sits him down, puts hand on his shoulder and bites lip*

nah man, there- there not real, go on man. let it out.:lol:

[Mike70]

*sits him down, puts hand on his shoulder and bites lip*

nah man, there- there not real, go on man. let it out.:lol:


just don't shatter my world with any revelations about santa claus or the great pumpkin:D

[Danny]

well you can sleep soundly with the knowledge that the universe does indeed rest on the back of a giant space turtle.;)

[acealive1]

Poor vikings. The only people who like them are white or historians or fantasists or members of the white power movement or a whole crapload of other people.





agreed

[7734]

i thought that 300 was horrible in the historical sense-it is, there's no doubt about that


it's not, i.e. it is accurate in the historical sense.
there do seem to be some imaginative additions, but if there hadn't been, it would have just been A Movie about Greek and Spartan History.



well there are people in the south that think dinosaurs were dragons so....

and you say that derogatorily because you've seen dinosaurs and dragons and know they are of different species?

[Danny]

well ones a mythical creature that breathed fire and flew with a wingspan that was impossible, the others were real and ive seen there bones in museums, so yeah ive got an incling that theres a difference between them.


dude viking culture is hella interesting. the literature and poetry they produced is awesome. their shipbuilding and navigation skills were way ahead of their time. in addition, their language and culture has influenced just about every country in northern europe.

i am white and a historian (albeit one trained in the classical world).

yknow i bet a movie about vikings coming to a new shore and finding a zombie plague would make a good zombie movie.

-sorry just brain farting here, but theres a script in that.

[clanglee]

I dunno man, it was a pretty sh*tty movie, but by no means the worst movie ever. I kinda liked seeing Clancy in Kurgen mode again.

[Mike70]

yknow i bet a movie about vikings coming to a new shore and finding a zombie plague would make a good zombie movie.

-sorry just brain farting here, but theres a script in that.


dude that's box office man, box office.

where are lou and dj? this should be their next project- right after the good, the bad, and the zombified.

[7734]

well ones a mythical creature that breathed fire and flew with a wingspan that was impossible, the others were real and ive seen there bones in museums, so yeah ive got an incling that theres a difference between them.


oh puh-leeze!

a trillion years of history deduced from a few skeletons?????

obviously these animals are real, but technically dinosaurs are as mythological as dragons.

and no, i am not a fanatic creationist or anything, but i know for a FACT that carbon dating is completely bunk when it comes to anything older than 20000 years. It seems that science today pushes it really hard just to piss off the christians (and that's OK cuz cristians piss me off too). But you can't deny that the bones that are on display in museums and the pictures on chinese papyrus of days of yore are of the same animal.

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT!

Death to unbelievers!

[Mike70]

dinosaur remains are NOT dated by carbon-14 (which only works on organic tissue remains-not fossils) my friend which is accurate only to about 50,000 years (not the 20,000 you claim)- carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,715 years, they are dated by what is called geologic column dating. determining the age of something by determining the strata of rock it is contained in and determining how and when that rock formed based on strata/column analysis. in addition to this they are dated (like other rock speicimens-which is what fossils really are) by radio-dating methods that will work on rock/fossil specimens.

for instance:
isotopes of potassium-40 (which decays to argon-40) has a half life of 1.26 Billion years or uranium-238 (to lead-206) has a half life of 4.5 Billion years or thorium-232 (to lead-209) has a half life of 14 Billion years or lutetium-176 (to hafnium-176) half life of 38 billion years- which is about 2 1/2 times the entire life span of the universe. each of these dating methods has an error percentage of no more than 5% and usually less than 2%.

enough said about dating by radioactive decay.

if this isn't schooling enough, i would be more than happy to continue this "debate."

[7734]

dinosaur remains are NOT dated by carbon-14 (which only works on organic tissue remains-not fossils) my friend which is accurate only to about 50,000 years (not the 20,000 you claim)- carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,715 years, they are dated by what is

....

methods has an error percentage of no more than 5% and usually less than 2%.

enough said about dating by radioactive decay.

if this isn't schooling enough, i would be more than happy to continue this "debate."

well, thank you sooooooo much for schooling me!

aside from the fact that Carbon 14 dating is done on fossils, and that insomuch as I give a fukc 20-50000 are pretty much the same thing when compared to 14-16 billion, i beleive i was talking about dragons, not trying to "debate" radiometric dating.

do you have a problem with dragons? why so hateful?

Your last two sentences sure convinced me of how smart you are!

Enough to copy and paste a wikipedia article, anyway.

:moon:hole

[Mike70]

Enough to copy and paste a wikipedia article, anyway.

:moon:hole

no i have no problem with dragons-see the favorite monsters thread in general discussion- they are on my list.

getting a our panties in a bunch aren't we? scientific ignorance brings out the worst in me.

none of that came from wikipedia. frak a whole busload of wikipedia. it came out of an old geology textbook from uni that i have THE EARTH, THROUGH TIME, 4th ed.Levin, Harold L. 1994, Saunders College. you brought up carbon dating - not me. you don't know what you are talking about.

carbon-14 dating is not done on dinosaur fossils they are far, far too old. plus carbon-14 only works on things like bone, wood, cloth, plant fibers- things of relatively recent biologic origin. not on fossils which are rocks.

my last two sentences referred to your seeming lack of knowledge about radio dating methods- given the fact that you had the carbon-14 date wrong by 30,000. plus the tone of your first post cries out "science conspiracy."

i would watch the name calling. that is not taken too kindly around here.

you have a very nice evening.

[7734]

the tone of your first post cries out "science conspiracy."


nope. as a matter of fact, i'm extremely weary of any 'faithful'.




scientific ignorance brings out the worst in me
...
my last two sentences referred to your seeming lack of knowledge

well, i may not hold any doctorates, but we can compare collegiate accreditations in biology, chemistry, and anthropology, if you'd like.



given the fact that you had the carbon-14 date wrong by 30,000.


this is true. It has been a long time since i've even thought about radiometric dating.



carbon-14 dating is not done on dinosaur fossils they are far, far too old. plus carbon-14 only works on things like bone, wood, cloth, plant fibers- things of relatively recent biologic origin. not on fossils which are rocks.


actually, it has been done extensively. and the faithful use that as a means of discrediting modern scientific theories. if you had tried to even understand my post, you would have seen that as my entire point. but you had to focus on my numeral mistake and use that to show me what a bastion of knowledge you are.



i would watch the name calling. that is not taken too kindly around here.


well, if you sound like one and talk down to me like one, then i suppose you are one. no scientific experimentation needed for that!

[Mike70]

well, i may not hold any doctorates, but we can compare collegiate accreditations in biology, chemistry, and anthropology, if you'd like.


last post on this subject - there's no need to engage in a penis size contest:

ba in classics - university of illinois. minor in anthropology.

phd in classics - university of cincinnati. most interested in the high period of the roman republic- end of 1st punic war to the gracchi. though i am also terribly interested in the late republic when it all came down in flames as well.

life long interest in science. esp astronomy and anthro.

[7734]

you have a very nice evening.


you too. i'm sure you'll be pontificating some time in the near future about my tremendous and derisible ignorance.:p

[Mike70]

you too. i'm sure you'll be pontificating some time in the near future about my tremendous and derisible ignorance.:p


pontification? you know this word? wow.

no i will probably ignore you in the future. oops already have.
buh-bye.

[7734]

no i will probably ignore you in the future. oops already have.


yet you posted. smooth:rolleyes:

[Danny]

....well that was retarded, back to the topic anyone?

[EvilNed]

actually, it has been done extensively.


Source plz!!!1!

Anyway, Pathfinder sucks big donkeyballs. I hated it the moment I saw the trailer. As already mentioned, the vikings are portrayed as dumb orcs who wear PLATE ARMOUR, SWING MACES and MORNING STARS and they also ride huge war horses. And how the hell can you make the mistake of adding horns to their helms?

Personally, I think that the historical viking is much cooler than the fantasy viking. Especially the fantasy viking taken too far (like in this film).

Not only that, the script sucked big time. There was no character in any of the characters, which is usually regarded as a fatal mistake when writing a script. I hated the plot because it was dull and unengaging. Some stupid action scenes were thrown in for good measure, and all of them seemed as if they were ripped from other films i've seen dozens of times before.

Also, how the hell could Karl Urbans character get superskilled with a sword just by owning one from his youth and up? You have to have someone to practice against, and someone to show you what you're doing wrong and what you're doing right.

The vikings also trained with their swords from youth up, AND they had the benefit of getting past experience passed down to them by elder warriors. Karl Urban did not, he would not have known what he did right or wrong. He probably would just have used it like an axe, yet he manages to cut through the vikings like butter. Which is another thing I hate: I hate it when the villains are portrayed as bad ASS and superstrong and superior to everything - EXCEPT the hero who is ten times as good as they. That loses all the suspense, because we know that no matter what happens, the Vikings are never going to touch our hero. He's just too good. Booooring.

[Mike70]

Source plz!!!1!

Anyway, Pathfinder sucks big donkeyballs. I hated it the moment I saw the trailer. As already mentioned, the vikings are portrayed as dumb orcs who wear PLATE ARMOUR, SWING MACES and MORNING STARS and they also ride huge war horses. And how the hell can you make the mistake of adding horns to their helms?

Personally, I think that the historical viking is much cooler than the fantasy viking. Especially the fantasy viking taken too far (like in this film).

Not only that, the script sucked big time. There was no character in any of the characters, which is usually regarded as a fatal mistake when writing a script. I hated the plot because it was dull and unengaging. Some stupid action scenes were thrown in for good measure, and all of them seemed as if they were ripped from other films i've seen dozens of times before.

Also, how the hell could Karl Urbans character get superskilled with a sword just by owning one from his youth and up? You have to have someone to practice against, and someone to show you what you're doing wrong and what you're doing right.

The vikings also trained with their swords from youth up, AND they had the benefit of getting past experience passed down to them by elder warriors. Karl Urban did not, he would not have known what he did right or wrong. He probably would just have used it like an axe, yet he manages to cut through the vikings like butter. Which is another thing I hate: I hate it when the villains are portrayed as bad ASS and superstrong and superior to everything - EXCEPT the hero who is ten times as good as they. That loses all the suspense, because we know that no matter what happens, the Vikings are never going to touch our hero. He's just too good. Booooring.

i was wondering when you would chime in on this, your favorite movie:lol:.

vikings usually get a bad rap in whatever they are portrayed in- just the nature of the beast, i guess. everyone wants to talk about the pillaging and nobody remembers or cares about the literature/poetry, the shipbuilding and navigation skills these folks had-or the fact that huge numbers of "vikings" were actually merchants.

anyway i think i am most likely done with this thread.

as for our "friend" i have him placed him on my ignore list. so i no longer have to look at his inane babblings or put up with being called an as shole.

[Terran]

Actually I was looking forward to this movie....I even made a post about it....
Search for it at will.....


I didnt care about any possible historical inaccuracies....I was interested in it purely for the rating it received...Rated R for extreme violence throughout(or something to that extent).....

But in reality Beowulf was more violent and a far better movie...especially in 3D, how did it get a pg13 rating? (I stole a handful of glasses heheeh...)


But anyways....Pathfinder sucked ....and it wasn’t because of the historical inaccuracies.....poor story telling....and poor cinematography

[Kaos]

you too. i'm sure you'll be pontificating some time in the near future about my tremendous and derisible ignorance.:p
I would recommend easing up, 7. Your tone ratcheted up unnecessarily in this discussion unduly.

You and scipio go to your respective corners and cool off.

Try to keep it civil, but if it continues to get personal the mods will step in. You are more than welcome here, but calling someone an asshole for merely having a different opinion than yours is not accepted on the forum.

Try to attacking the argument as opposed to the person. That rule of thumb really does help folks have longevity here.

[7734]

Try to keep it civil, but if it continues to get personal the mods will step in. You are more than welcome here, but calling someone an asshole for merely having a different opinion than yours is not accepted on the forum.

Try to attacking the argument as opposed to the person. That rule of thumb really does help folks have longevity here.

absolutely. I remember the flames and the hacking in the dark days before the third millenium. Sucks.

But the :moon:hole comment came from being called ignorant and uneducated instead of being corrected in a civil manner.

But anyways! I'm sure you guys are tired of this.
How about those zombies?

[Kaos]

But anyways! I'm sure you guys are tired of this.


Too true. ;)

[mista_mo]

to me, the film went on far to long with too little interesting happening....i don't usually notice my ass falling asleep in a good film, but for this one i felt my ass screetch in dissapointment an hour before i thought (was hoping) for the movie to end.

I appreciate the blood shed and violence, but damnit...it was a suck movie.

[clanglee]

vikings usually get a bad rap in whatever they are portrayed in- just the nature of the beast, i guess. .

Come on man!! Eric the Viking?!?! No bad rap there.

[EvilNed]

I'd like to see a big budgeted Hollywood film that would retell some of the interesting viking tales out there, like how they besieged Constantinople. Wouldn't it make a kickass adventure film to follow a viking on his way from Scandinavia down to Constantinople, fight against the byzantines, get captured and get indoctrined into the Varangian Guard and then have to fight the very same vikings he once belonged too? An interesting epic, to be sure. And please, no horns.

[AcesandEights]

And please, no horns.

Aye, none of that Romanticist's crap!