Wow. LXG was awesome.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Champion of Europa I still don't have the slightest clue who James Moriarty is. I didn't read the books, and therefore hated the storyline. Bad Mitch.

So you hated the story because you didn't read the books? Here I thought it was because you only like linear stories. Changing your story?

James Moriarty is the "Arch Nemesis" of Sherlock Holmes. The rebirth he mentions as this new individual comes from the "final" Sherlock Holmes story, in which Moriarty and Holmes plunged to their supposed mutual death.

Really, if lack of information is the only reason you're bitching, then you're the one to blame. You went into a movie that was based, in its entirety, around old pulp characters that are well-known and public domain. What did you expect, a half-hour backstory on each character, then for them to explain everything about another public domain (and famous) character, the archvillain?

That's funny. "OMGGGGGGGGGGG IT WUZ HORRIBEL BCUZ I DIDNT GET IT!!!! MOVEIZ SHULD BE DUMED DOWN & PANDER @ ME!"

I'll give you a hint, BTW. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? You'd hate it. It starts off looking for a squid. It turns out there's a Submarine involved! Jules Verne was such a dumbass for leading people to believe that the squid was the central focus of the book.

Sorry, you've given one of the most worthless arguments for why a movie is bad in the collected history of whiny bitches pissing about movies.

[Champion of Europa]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight So you hated the story because you didn't read the books? Here I thought it was because you only like linear stories. Changing your story? James Moriarty is the "Arch Nemesis" of Sherlock Holmes. The rebirth he mentions as this new individual comes from the "final" Sherlock Holmes story, in which Moriarty and Holmes plunged to their supposed mutual death. Really, if lack of information is the only reason you're bitching, then you're the one to blame. You went into a movie that was based, in its entirety, around old pulp characters that are well-known and public domain. What did you expect, a half-hour backstory on each character, then for them to explain everything about another public domain (and famous) character, the archvillain? That's funny. "OMGGGGGGGGGGG IT WUZ HORRIBEL BCUZ I DIDNT GET IT!!!! MOVEIZ SHULD BE DUMED DOWN & PANDER @ ME!" I'll give you a hint, BTW. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? You'd hate it. It starts off looking for a squid. It turns out there's a Submarine involved! Jules Verne was such a dumbass for leading people to believe that the squid was the central focus of the book. Sorry, you've given one of the most worthless arguments for why a movie is bad in the collected history of whiny bitches pissing about movies.

I like linear plots when they are done well, and I like non-linear plots when they are done well. It was not done well in this movie.

I had no clue who Moriarty was, and assumed his name sake would've added an entirely new layer to the movie and would've magically made the movie good. Now that I've filled in the blanks, it hasn't.

Also, when someone disses a movies/music/political stances you like, must you always go straight for the netspeak when you know perfectly well that I and most others here do not type like that?

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Champion of Europa I like linear plots when they are done well, and I like non-linear plots when they are done well. It was not done well in this movie. I had no clue who Moriarty was, and assumed his name sake would've added an entirely new layer to the movie and would've magically made the movie good. Now that I've filled in the blanks, it hasn't. Also, when someone disses a movies/music/political stances you like, must you always go straight for the netspeak when you know perfectly well that I and most others here do not type like that?

Only when it suits the stupidity of the argument.