First of all, Jason will always be Jason. See it's kinda' like yer head. If I tore it off and gave it to your next of kin, it will still be your head. If I pushed in out of the space shuttle's airlock, it would do really neat tricks, but after your brain exploded it's way through your neck, eyes and nasal passages, and your eyes detonated, and your veins swelled-up, it would still be yer head. Jason will always be Jason, and I for one, feel that to be worth watching. I feel that Kane Hodder is an incredible body actor, and that it will be interesting (at the very least,) to see Jason in a new environment stalking his victims the way no one else can. Sure there's corniness involved, but in my opinion, that doesn't immediately make it suck.

As for ending the series after Part 2, that's another opinion of yours that I'm not too fond of. I'm glad that you don't have any real say in the matter, because I personally didn't think the first two were as good as some of the rest of them. But then again, what does my opinion matter next to your own superior intellect and it's vast knowledge of what people like.

So what if he's in space? What's the problem? Is it that they're taking a familiar character and placing them in a new environment, I'd have thought you'd be glad that they were REACHING to try something at least a LITTLE New with a character like that? So sorry to disrupt you. Yes, it takes place in the possible future.

Now, I DO happen to feel that the script for it DOES suck, I won't say that it doesn't. My OPINION is based on the fact that I've read most of the script, but at the moment you're having problems with the cover of the book?

That makes sense though, considering some of your articles in the past.. you know, the whole "look at me, I know more than everybody else, and only MY opinions count for anything" kind of nonsense. Perhaps it's time that folks let you know what they thought of your articles. Similar to how you decided to tell them what you thought about the things they liked to write about.

There was a tantrum you had awhile ago which basically said: "I know that some of you are musicians, but I still know more about music because I've only been alive half as long as you have. So WHAT if you were inspired enough by music to create your own BEFORE I WAS EVEN BORN."

Does that seem silly to anyone else? Nolan called it presumptuous, at the time. I choose to call it a sign of arrogance, and self-centeredness. It's as if to say: " No human being contains any information that is superior to mine, nor can they make any intelligent decisions that aren't the same as I would choose, because obviously, I am the superior enlightened being."

Followed quickly by: " Geez guys can't you take a joke?" as you desperately tried to eat your own words and look like you "meant to do that" even "threatening" to leave the PCR because people wouldn't take it the way you decided they should?

Later it was: "Overthrow the government because it hates me, because I'm a Public Access Producer and they haven't gotten me a trophy for it yet." As if Public Access was the government, and your videos pose such a terrible threat to them that they had the choice to either secretly eliminate you, OR make you follow the same rules as everyone else does.

I could almost hear the thoughts in your head when you wrote that article, like "this will show them! they can't keep me down! White Power! White Power! They'll be afraid when they see my letter because they'll know my intellect, and know that I'm not afraid to spread the word of their plague. How dare they require that I PROVE that I know how to use THEIR equipment that they LET ME use for FREE? I'll put them out of operation, I'll single-handedly create a situation that CAN'T be ignored by the powers that be!"

Heh heh, that article killed me, Terence, you've got a very impressive chip on your shoulder. No one owes you anything, so stop demanding tribute. To my knowledge, there isn't anyone here that worships you, because to my knowledge, you haven't earned it.

So now you want to do that to Nolan's PCR, so it's: "I don't have OPINIONS, my word is LAW and PCR was written for me, and I'm not happy that people have interests, opinions, or tastes other than my own . Everyone popular sucks, because everyone else is truly, and genuinely entertained by these popular people."

You gonna' do that with movies too?

Personally, I know enough to use and properly place an external microphone when I record something that may be difficult to pick-up with the video camera's mounted microphone. Doesn't that somehow prove that I have more movie knowledge than you, at least when you did your movies on Public Access? No it doesn't, but it perhaps it reminds you that you are NOT the supreme being, incapable of fault? Don't take that personally, because I happen to like some of your horror movies, though I have to say they never created a feeling of uneasiness or fear within me, nor did they ever make me "jump" or cause a quick intake of breath. I should point-out though, that there HAVE been movies by popular folks that were liked by mainstream audiences that HAVE done that.

A lot of these mannerisms you've shown us are fairly common with kids in preschool. Go ask the standard preschooler what they think of their parents watching the news when they come home, especially when there's obviously a nice noisy cartoon on another channel somewhere. You'd probably note some startling similarities to your tantrum.

But in any event, let's talk about what it means to earn fame through superior quality workmanship. If a person, we'll call him "Steven" does really well in his area of expertise, time and time again, I feel that he deserves recognition for his efforts. If movies created with his resources draw attention, even though he isn't 100% involved, that should be fine too, because it's his reputation on the line. According to your line of reasoning, he shouldn't get anything for ANY work he did on Lost World, because apparently he only directed via satellite, so therefore that movie was basically directed by a hack. But, I have to ask, if that movie was a god-awful failure, who's name was it that was going to be dragged through the mud? Steven's.

Amistad was ripped off someone else's story. So? noone's expecting Steven to write the stories that his movies are based on. If it's ripped-off so flagrantly, then why doesn't anyone press charges? Did they figure Steve was too broke to get any money off him? Or did they somehow miss the movie coming out? Or did they not have your superior intellect at work on noting the similarities?

As far as the boy scout thing goes, he was supporting the boy scouts without any notable fanfare. Doesn't that suggest that he was doing that for "the right" reasons? There isn't really a "right" reason, but I thought I'd use that to illustrate just how subjective this type of material is. In any event, as a business man that's trying to put out movies that promote tolerance, it would be considered very bad to keep supporting a group that was non-tolerant. So you're ticked-off because he's a good business man? Gee, that's enlightened. Oh wait, I get it, his movies suck now because he did that. hmm.. that doesn't seem to be it either.

Oh.. here it is. He was successfully created movies that entered into the mainstream and were praised. That makes him a horrible man that sold-out, so anything he does from this point on is entirely suspect. As we all know, selling-out means that you compromised your vision in-order to get tickets sold. It's funny though that selling-out, and being successful are so closely linked. I suppose Steve has this vision of his that he's decided to sell-out for the fame and money?

Don't you think that when you want to create your own business, you'd want to do things in such a way that you'd be able to make enough money, that you'd be able to put the money back into it in-order to work-on whatever you really WANT to work on?

Whoa! Hold the phone!!! You mean that the movie industry is a BUSINESS? I always thought that the purpose of a business was to be successful, not waste time and energy on projects that may never draw much money. Isn't it ironic? One of the filmmakers you lumped in there was George Lucas that actually funded 99% of the Empire Strikes Back all by himself simply because he couldn't get financial backing for the project without COMPROMISING HIS VISION TO FIT WHAT THE MASSES WANTED. Even though it was HIS vision that caused Star Wars to do so well, DESPITE the fact that most of it "went out on a limb".

It's funny that the man you used as an example of selling-out, is actually the guy you should be cheering on.

Oh no...wait a sec...his vision and business sense isn't YOUR vision or business sense, so he's just an inconsequential moron wearing a Jar Jar t-shirt somewhere out in California who spends all day counting his money. Hmm...doesn't that mean that his business was a success? NO, it means he sold out, simply because he wanted everything to look better, and the effects to be more convincing.

But he did what he set-out to do, right? NO, he was a filmmaker with a vision that has sold himself out like the wanton whore that he is, this is apparently someone else's vision he's using, because he compromised his own! Hmm.. Why would a guy like that be so picky about what people do with his Star Wars characters? Or about the content of the Star Wars novels after selling folks the rights to use them? Because he's exploiting his vision for profit, even though it's NOT his vision, because he sold out, and he wants to make sure that anyone using the characters leaves them in good enough shape to resell them. Thereby additionally profiting for his hard labor, which makes him a complete sell-out.

Tom Hanks and Robin Williams are famous for their acting abilities, they may have "suffered" some typecasting, but that doesn't ruin their abilities, it merely hones the stuff that they're good at. They're good, and have been recognized for that. It's a shame that you don't agree with that, but so what? are we all supposed to say," oh yeah, I hate them now because Terence doesn't like them?"

The movie theater notes, and the Oscars are things that I don't care about, personally, and I feel that perhaps the theater closings are too local to be of much interest to the internet at large. I know how to skip past articles that don't interest me, and leave it well enough alone, because I know there are people who DO like the topics. However, your rantings against them are very interesting because they illustrate the fact that you want Nolan to "sell-out" to YOUR point of view! Isn't your whole beef with the idea that stuff is too PC this days, and over-produced, etc..? You're an incredible hypocrite, Terence. People do what they want BECAUSE it's what they want, not because some "supreme being" like yourself came down to tell them how to think.

Here's one of the parts I loved: #9 on your list of hated things about PCR: "The fact that I have to take up a whole column's worth of time to point all this out to you all." Oh, well gee, sorry that we needed your guidance, oh worthy one. Please, if we seem to need any more guidance, I beseech you to not intervene so that your precious time isn't wasted.

I think the best part about your article was it's ending: "In closing, if you don't like what I have to say, tell somebody else other than me." With the implied additional ending of: "because I'm sensitive, and you might make me cry. You have to listen to what I say, because I'm the supreme being, but I don't have to listen because you're all going to be wrong."

The impression you've been making is that of a whiner, not the dark and brooding spectre you keep practicing in the mirror. If you want more respect, lay off the self-loathing and hypocrisy so that you may become a more PC-type personality. Folks here have been asked in the past to take it easy on you because you're just a kid, but you're not that much younger than me, and I figure that you're just going to have to deal with it. You're an adult now, so start acting like it and quit whining.

Terence, when your head comes out your ass, please feel free to comment. I for one, am not afraid of ANY rebuttal you might decide to send my way.

-Mike (Deadguy) Scott

P.S. "Best performances" additions:
#11 Tom Hanks - in "Big", showed his ability to play a childlike innocence that would later be imitated in the script for Forrest Gump, since the part was written to include him.
#12 Tom Hanks - in "Turner and Hooch", was able to radiate integrity and honesty, and showed him dealing with simultaneous feelings at the same time throughout the film.
#13 Tom Hanks - in "Cast Away", that was an awful lot of screen time with not much talking. I doubt there's any other names in these lists that could have pulled off a better performance.
#14 Robin Williams for the denial-evolving-into-wonderment as he learns his identity in "Peter Pan".
#15 Robin Williams in "What Dreams May Come" for all of the emotive PAIN and hope in his performance with regards to his family that died before him, and then died after him. A VERY powerful performance, in a very powerful movie.

Yes, these additions were initially intended to piss off Terence, but honestly, I had forgotten how much I liked these guys until I really thought about it. In fact, I'd replace some of the other one's I'd already listed to include these (well, excluding Nolan's outstanding performance in The Horror Writer).

-Mike