In article <iM6dneCgUc3dAlTanZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:ANIM8Rfsk-92C9E6.09301801032008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <c-idna_my-6_z1TanZ2dnUVZ_v2pnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> "an0nemus" <an0nemus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> news:47c8b3ac$0$1113$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >I didn't want to see this movie, and then I saw the trailer
> >>
> >> Mission accomplished.
> >>
> >> -- Ken from Chicago
> >
> > The only thing wrong with it is way too much Paltrow.
> >
> >
> > It looks freaking great.
> >
> > --
> > Star Trek 09:
> >
> > No Shat, No Show.
> > http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg
>
> No, the one thing wrong with the trailer is that keep that end shot of
an
> obviously herky jerky badly animated cgi Iron Man.
Doubly wrong because it's what we bitched about most on the previous
one. But it was pre-existing; Paltrow is growing, so it's more wrong.
>
> Or, Anim, to put it in terms you'd understand, imagine if the trailer
ENDED
> with the shot of Gwyneth so that it was the final image in your mind.
I like it. Iron Man fires, blows the tank and Paltrow to fiery chunks
of flesh, the end.
--
Star Trek 09:
No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg
|
