Why Computer games don't make good movies

look I got no problem with them changing chronology around, especially when they only have 2 hours or less to cram everything in, I just didn't like a few key points, mainly the whole pilgrim thing, the guy who played paladin(plus the way they introduced him into the plot), and well I just can't stand freddy prinz jr get ridd of those and I would have ignored the rest(even angel's english accent), but you liked it and I aint gonna change your idea, oh yeah and I also thought how they sent in blair with the marines was just stupid since it never would have happened but that's just my point of view
 
I guess he took it upon himself to take a field trip to see what projectiles do up close and personal.
 
orangefen said:
well that may be true, however they had no problem combining ten years of events into the one movie when they included elements of wcI and WCII
Click to expand...

You assume that many stuff we see in WC2 was new, while it wasn't. The Broadsword wasn't new, in fact we know it was there in the WC1 timeline. Same goes for torpedoes. The only thing that is strange is the skipper missile which sounded new in WC3.
 
What's wrong with "the whole pilgrim thing"? And everything else you mentioned?

If you want to have a sensible debate, it can be done, but it's going to take more than just blanket disapproval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top