An almost decent, but flawed flick. Is the initial concept laughable? Yes. Did the writers find a way to make it, somewhat, believable? In my honest opinion, I think so. Putting everything else aside, I did enjoy the story they were trying to tell, even though it may have been jumbled up to the point of no return. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is not winning any merit awards, but for what it was, it entertained me.
There were some Oo-Ahh moments. A lot of the fight sequences, as far-fetched as they were, were pretty cool to look at. I liked this movies spin on the vampire lore and the abilities they possess, even though they totally forwent the sunlight aspect, which was just lazy.
The acting was sub par, especially from the lead actor. He character of Lincoln was on the brink of having a personality, but I found it shell-like. It may have been the script, the direction, or the actor's ability, but characterization in this film was lacking.
All in all, you could watch it if you're looking to pass the time, but don't go into it expecting something it's not, because you'll come out disappointed.
I have noticed a lot of people complaining when somebody makes a vampire able to be out in the daytime. A fair complaint I guess, but unjustified. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've seen nothing in old vampire legends that states that vampires couldn't go out in the sunlight if they wanted to. If it's the old "Creatures of the night" thing, I can tell you this, there are a lot of nocturnal creatures in the world, but nothing bad will happen to them if they actually stepped out in the daytime.
Post by eagle219406 on May 27, 2013 11:40:33 GMT -6
What confuses me is how people hate something in one movie yet love it in another thing of a similar genre. Examples. People say they didn't like "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" because they were too campy and unrealistic. However, the old "Batman" TV series in the 1960s was even campier and more unrealistic than those movies were, and yet IT became a classic. Another thing is how many movies are hated because they were too different from the book they based it on. How about the 1930s adaptation of "The Wizard of Oz?" It remains a classic to this day, and was almost NOTHING like the book.
Post by eagle219406 on Aug 22, 2012 21:24:09 GMT -6
I often wonder why people get so mad about certain movies being so different from the books. They didn't used to. Take "The Wizard of Oz" for example. It's a classic to this day, and was almost NOTHING like the book.
Post by eagle219406 on Aug 22, 2012 16:37:54 GMT -6
I don't know if this is the place to ask this, but I'll ask this anyway. When I watched the Opening Credits for the second season, there was a message below that a second version would be made for the second half of the season that would add Alaina and Julian to it. I have never seen that one made. Is it still planned?
How you doing. I've been reading a few things about upcoming stuff, but I haven't seen a new episode since last November. Any Idea when or even If it's coming back? Just curious.
I'm doing pretty well. Busy with a lot of things, but who isn't? lol In regards to Trinity, if everything works out the way I want it to, it should return this year, as early as October and as late as December. I'm hoping sometime between that, but we shall see.
Right now, writing is kind of frustrating because I have to rewrite an episode I have already written, but lost. So, I'm just trying to get through that. In the mean time, I'm outlining future episodes so staff writers can start on them without having to wait for me to finish this one episode, so the season can move forward.
Post by eagle219406 on Jan 14, 2012 6:52:01 GMT -6
First of all The series is great and I am looking forward to the rest of them. But that being said, A lot of the things you have discussed here, make me wonder, Do you disregard the beginning and end of the "Smallville" season finale, that took place in the future, or are you just going around them? Some spoilers make it appear that you are leading up to it, others make it look like you disregard it. No offense either way, but I was just curious.
^^ I don't care enough about Connor to call him a 'sore spot'. Lois was one of my favourite characters until season nine (more specifically, after Pandora). So believe it or not, I love Lois more than I hate her -- there are four seasons worth of great material with her that I love (seasons 4 to 8). When they decided to shift gears with her to better suit the mythology, they just walked all over her character and ... I just hated it.
And I don't understand the big fuss about Connor. He was a one time character (realistically), that spent most of the episode high off Red Kryptonite, and was trying to rape Lois. I don't want him anywhere near Chloe, therefore, I don't intend to bring him on the show.
You are a unique individual, I'll tell you that. One of the reasons that so many Superhero movies are failing these days, is because they ARE different from their comic mythology, and the fans couldn't handle that.
Post by eagle219406 on Jul 3, 2011 12:28:55 GMT -6
If Mr. Malone doesn't like Lois Lane's Character, and doesn't want to put her in Watchtower, I can respect that. Personally I'd rather he didn't put her in it at all than do what I've seen a lot of other fanfic writers did to characters they hated. They would turn them into a Bitch or have the other characters treat them like Dirt. When I see that, I immediately hit the "Back" button. So Kudos to you if you don't want to include her. Now If Chris wish to put her in "Trinity," I'm Pretty sure Jack has no say in that. He probably doesn't realize though that the way he described Lois in the last 2 seasons, was probably closer to her Comic Book Counterpart than in earlier seasons. In the old Comics as well as animated and live action TV series, she was in peril Constantly, and always needed Superman to rescue her. It wasn't until the "Lois and Clark" era that she actually became the Tougher woman that fought back. And even then she had her fair share of Peril.