Sky High

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

the new TMNT comic beats the pants off the current comic done by Eastman, and it's based on the current cartoon, even adapted some of the stories (though from a very different perspective).

[Peter Ahlstrom]

We went and saw Sky High last Saturday. We enjoyed it every bit as much as we could hope from our highest expectations. (Terrible sentence...) It was a lot of fun.

[Tink]

I just saw this movie and, like the others, I found it very fun, but without much depth (which it doesn't need cause it's suppose to be a light fun movie).

One issue I had with the plot, though, (THE FOLLOWING IS A SPOILER) is that Royal Pain obviously remembers everything that happened to her before becoming a baby for the second time, and yet she thought that by turning all the superheroes into babies, she could raise them to be super villains. How does this make sense? Wouldn't they remember that she was the one to turn them into babies again? And that before then they stood for justice? If you ask me, she's just asking for double trouble. She would have to deal with not only the children of these heroes, but their now young parents as well (granted, it would be a few years until they would be able to fight, but there would still be more than otherwise). Don't you guys agree? (I'm sorry if this has been talked about, but I didn't see anyone mention it.)

[Skar]

Not that a movie as light as Sky High needs it but your objection could be explained if Royal Pain did not in fact remember the events but only knew them from the stories her foster father, now sidekick, told her as she grew up for the second time.  

Meh?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

That's what I reckoned. *shrug*
Or else she's just insane (caused by going through puberty twice, probably), so her plans don't have to make sense. heh.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Or else she's just insane (caused by going through puberty twice, probably),

*shudders*
That would drive anyone insane.

[Tink]

That's what I reckoned. *shrug*
Or else she's just insane (caused by going through puberty twice, probably), so her plans don't have to make sense. heh.

Well, that's part of the reason I figured she remembered. Why would she be so mad about going through puberty twice if she didn't remember the first time? Doesn't make sense. I must agree that it is because she was too mad to realize her mistakes (or more likely, the writers were too oblivious to realize theirs. It may be a light movie, and it was still fun, but it'd be nice if the plot made some sense ).

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

no, see, those are different options, not the same.
Either she a) DOESN'T remember, and was just raised that way by her foster father, or b) she DOES remember and was driven insane by repeating puberty, which means her plan doesn't make sense

And beside that ONE problem, the plot DID make sense, and it's a problem very easily worked around, without changing the movie.

[Tink]

Whoa, boy! Wow, you must really care about this! Personally, I don't care. I'll still watch the movie again sometime cause it was fun and cute. I just thought it was an interesting point, so I thought I'd point it out. If you don't agree, that's all right. I still think it's a flaw, though.

[Eric James Stone]

I think she was planning on brainwashing the babies, so they would forget their prior lives.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

And beside that ONE problem, the plot DID make sense, and it's a problem very easily worked around, without changing the movie.

MORE SPOILERS


Well, I didn't catch that the reason for turning the superheroes into babies was to raise them as supervillains. I also did not think that she lost her memory--which led to MY problem with the plot: If she did remember everything, why did she need to steal the Pacifier gun instead of just making a new one herself? She was, after all, able to fix it when it was broken...

[Tink]

Yeah, that is weak! She should have totally been able to build a new one!

I think she was planning on brainwashing the babies, so they would forget their prior lives.

And that's a good idea, but it should have been explained if that's true. They shouldn't leave us to make up our own reasons. It would not have been hard when she was explaining to baby Commander to add the brainwashing, but as I recall she just said that she was going to raise them to be evil.

[Skar]

Both objections (the plan and the gun) are solved by the notion that she lost her memory but that she was raised to know her own history by her father/sidekick.

Pay attention Tink, these explanations have been offered to you three times now.

No one else cares very much about the movie either but it's annoying einough to pursue when someone obviously didn't read one's post before responding to it.

[Tink]

For your information, I read that explanation, but that doesn't mean I accept it. (And rude for saying that I "obviously" didn't read the post, cause duh, I did. And if you think it's so annoying to talk about, you really don't have to read the thread or respond to it .) She seemed pretty pissed that she had to go through puberty twice. Why would you care so much if you didn't remember the first time? Anyway, it's really a mute point since there is NOT conclusive evidence one way or the other. I just thought it was interesting. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative. But you don't have to argue with me and try to convince me. I liked the discussion we were having. Isn't that the point of a forum--to discuss, and then decide on our own opinions? Please don't be a troll .

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

She seemed pretty pissed that she had to go through puberty twice.

Because it's funny? Because she sees that she's already done it once, she shouldn't have to do it again.

Really, not accepting it seems pretty much just a stubborn way of trying to ensure that you have managed to find the plot hole.

If it really doesn't matter to you, why do you have to keep re-hashing it?

anyway, as for trolling, yeah, no trolling. but Tink, I think you're seeing trolling where it doesn't exist. In my last post, I was explaining something you didn't understand (you clearly didn't, or else you have a very very queer manner of intentionally misrepresenting someone's position in order to say it doesn't make sense). When I corrected you, you started firing off about how sensitive I was being. So, perhaps you're a) not expressing yourself well enough, because it seemed to me too that you still didn't understand what we were saying, and/or b) thinking people are more emotional than they are.