Why did JJ allow "COVERFIELD" in TITLE as it had NADA to do w/original ?
-
-
drfunk-18075 — 9 years ago(July 26, 2016 04:18 PM)
You don't even understand logical fallacy yet continue to fail in its application. In case you hadn't noticed this is an open forum. All you have contributed is your lack of understanding of logic in the academic sense.
-
mugojoe — 9 years ago(July 25, 2016 07:15 AM)
Begging the question. Appeal to authority. Shall we add proof by assertion and call it a day?
All you have to do is point out how the films are related
on their own merit as works of art
and I'll disappear with a humble apology.
Until then, the conversation continues, sweetie. -
MarwoodWalks — 9 years ago(July 25, 2016 07:39 AM)
Look Kid, I am not just going over old ground to try and prove points already proven to anyone with half a brain. I have already pointed out the links, and the fact that the film makers say they are linked (which is a fact you can't disagree with).
Until then, the conversation continues, sweetie.
This is not a conversation, when you started throwing insults you ended the conversation. This is the forum equivalent of a much better boxer knocking down a lesser opponent, and yet the opponent wont stay down. Well you keep on replying with nothing, and i will keep on knocking you down.
"dont you hear that horrible screaming all around you? That screaming men call silence." -
MarwoodWalks — 9 years ago(July 25, 2016 01:59 PM)
Yet again you reply with no substance. You are out of arguments and haven't successfully refuted a word I have said.
Do you have an adult or guardian who can help?
LOLthat's pathetic.
"dont you hear that horrible screaming all around you? That screaming men call silence." -
mugojoe — 9 years ago(July 25, 2016 02:22 PM)
I'm actually the one asking for substance. My claim is that there is no way to substantiate your argument. You have proven this over and over again through opting out.
If I missed something, I'm sure your ilk can help finish this thought (because you can't):
"Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane are clearly linked through these observations in both films:
a. ______________
b. ______________
c. ______________"
So run along, poochie. I'm looking for a conversation with an adult now. -
MarwoodWalks — 9 years ago(July 25, 2016 03:56 PM)
See my answer below.
So run along, poochie. I'm looking for a conversation with an adult now.
Yeah you sound so mature.
Another knockdownBOOM!
"dont you hear that horrible screaming all around you? That screaming men call silence." -
jaquesburton — 9 years ago(July 25, 2016 11:39 AM)
So two stories about the same world event told in different settings and with different povs are unrelated? Have you ever heard of an anthology? BTW, referring to people you disagree with using cutesy pet names makes you sound smug, not smart. Nobody's arguing this is a sequel, just that the films are loosely related.
That IS a tasty burger! -
mugojoe — 9 years ago(July 25, 2016 01:25 PM)
Come on sport, you're better than this.
same world event
How so? Other than alien monsters from the sky, which is a centuries-old trope, what elements unify the two? The method of approach is different (one from the water, the other from the sky). The types of monsters are different (in terms of design and intelligence). They don't occur in the same region. The events don't reference each other (heck, even live news reports during Cloverfield don't mention similar devastation in other areas of the country). Other than a commonality shared by every alien invasion film ever made, what irrefutably sets them in the same universe?
In other words, if this film was called "Something's Goofy in Texas" not a single person would ask, "Why was the word 'Cloverfield' not in the title?"
Nobody's arguing this is a sequel, just that the films are loosely related.
Well, they're arguing
poorly
that they're loosely related. The arguments are based on stinky, smelly, icky piles of raw, unprocessed fallacies, not observations.