Lethal Weapon 1-4

[apollo_creed]

Very solid film series.

1 is considered the best, and probably is but 2-4 maintained a consistent quality. Pesci kept things fresh, the incredible on screen rapport between Gibson and Glover remained and the bad guys were well written, directed and performed.

I personally love all four of the films.

Riggs + Murtaugh - great combo. :thumbsu:

[SunKing]

I'm too old for this shit.

[Xtreme]

Awesome film series, in the age of rehashing old films i'd love to see a 5th movie :p. I watch the movies at least once a year (usually back to back to back to back), some years i'll watch them 4-5 times over the course of a year :thumbsu:.


I prefer the first in overall story, but the second continued it quite well. Would have been an ok ending had they gone with what was originally intended Martin Riggs dying.

The third and fourth arn't as good storyline wise, but the character interaction makes up for it.

I love the fourth, and get a little too excited at the end before Roger dives into the water :p

[Tony_Clifton]

The first was awesome, the second good and after that it is a beverley hills cop 3 comedy.

[apollo_creed]

The first was awesome, the second good and after that it is a beverley hills cop 3 comedy.

BHC 1 and 2, are excellent - I rate them highly. however, I (like most) feel that BHC 3 is one of the biggest pieces of rubbish ever produced (and it's not questionable). it was crap and no one with a half a brain would suggest otherwise.

however, to group LW 3 and 4 in the same basket as BHC is beyond ridiculous mate.
they're still good films in their own right, not as good as the original (or arguably the sequel) but the quality is still evident. the fourth one was I suppose, a little bit self serving at times but it still had its moments and gave the series some finishing quality.

[apollo_creed]

IMDB ratings aren't necessarily the best guide, or anywhere near definitive but they're especially useful when comparing the quality of movies in a particular series.

BHC 1 - 7.3
BHC 2 - 6.0
BHC 3 - 4.9

Quite a rapid decline and the third one was obviously a piece of rubbish, as seen by most.

Lethal Weapon - 7.6
Lethal Weapon 2 - 7.0
Lethal Weapon 3 - 6.5
Lethal Weapon 4 - 6.4

This reflects what I have said, the first one being the best, the next three maintaining a consistent quality.

I'd have each movie about 1 point higher (1.0) but when it comes to personal favourites your opinion/bias should account for about a -1.0 swing from the opinion of the general population.

[scooterb]

I picked the box-set up from JB HiFi a few months ago and I ended up watching them all again the other week.

As you said, 1 is easily the best, followed by 2, 4 and 3.

I didn't mind the 4th one.

[MickZu]

1 was definitely the best.

http://www.linkomedia.com/movies.php?select=Lethal+Weapon

[Bomber32]

The first two were definitely the best. 3 & 4 weren't that bad, but, obviously nowhere near the quality of the first couple.

[Punchy Bassett]

Number 2 is an awesome film, being a bit undersold here, one of the best sequels ever.

[bacon buster]

you got love the seth effrikans in number 2

diplomatic immunity!
BANG!
it's just been revoked.

champagne, right there.

[red+black]

Fantastic fight scene:

PnSHQHXvaTU&fmt=18

[krisholio14]

Would you like a shot at the title?

Don't mind if I do :D

[Punchy Bassett]

you got love the seth effrikans in number 2

diplomatic immunity!
BANG!
it's just been revoked.

champagne, right there.

They have been De-Kaffer-nated!

[Saint KFC]

IMDB ratings aren't necessarily the best guide, or anywhere near definitive but they're especially useful when comparing the quality of movies in a particular series.

BHC 1 - 7.3
BHC 2 - 6.0
BHC 3 - 4.9

Quite a rapid decline and the third one was obviously a piece of rubbish, as seen by most.

Lethal Weapon - 7.6
Lethal Weapon 2 - 7.0
Lethal Weapon 3 - 6.5
Lethal Weapon 4 - 6.4

This reflects what I have said, the first one being the best, the next three maintaining a consistent quality.

I'd have each movie about 1 point higher (1.0) but when it comes to personal favourites your opinion/bias should account for about a -1.0 swing from the opinion of the general population.

I just can't believe that I'm sitting here listening to someone reference IMDB in an effort to substantiate his point. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's right, the same IMDB with several factions that strategically vote certain movies up/down (Dark Knight, Shawshank). You couldn't make it up.

You can sit there and pull ratings thresholds and notions out of your ass (such as the 1.0 point swing) in order to give the apparition that your analysis is more objective and reasonable than it actually is, but even with your little caveat, if you're going to try and argue that the movies themselves are of a consistent quality, don't reference people's subjective opinions for ****s sake, especially not from a site prone to bias and manipulating the ratings of several movies.

[apollo_creed]

I just can't believe that I'm sitting here listening to someone reference IMDB in an effort to substantiate his point. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's right, the same IMDB with several factions that strategically vote certain movies up/down (Dark Knight, Shawshank). You couldn't make it up.

You can sit there and pull ratings thresholds and notions out of your ass (such as the 1.0 point swing) in order to give the apparition that your analysis is more objective and reasonable than it actually is, but even with your little caveat, if you're going to try and argue that the movies themselves are of a consistent quality, don't reference people's subjective opinions for ****s sake, especially not from a site prone to bias and manipulating the ratings of several movies.
Did you read the ****ing post?

How else would you like me to illustrate the stupidity of comparing BHC III to LW 3 & 4?

And some ratings on IMDB are questionable but if a movies shit then the majority will vote accordingly. Which is why most shit movies have shit ratings. (go figure)
Case in point Beverly Hills Cop 3. Are you saying the people are wrong, and this film is in fact not accurately adjudicated by the majority?

Lower profile films are not impacted by this strategic voting so it's certainly a moot point in this case.
And if there is any 'strategic voting' it's tremor would be minor. And while it might be difficult to nullify with the formula used for higher rated, more frequently voted films - for Lethal Weapon and BHC the use of formula, and the obviously less number of strategic votes would ensure that this has absolutely no impact on the ratings and the ratings are indeed a representation of the opinions of people who have seen the film.

People that vote on these films are people who are fans of the series. And certainly the most appropriate people to gauge the respective quality of films in the series and to evaluate any decline in quality.
When an opinion is obviously consistent covering thousands of voters - it gives a more accurate indication than you're likely to get anywhere else.

The ridiculous difference in rating and discrepancy from the first two, speaks accurately about the pathetic piece of crap that is BHC III. And if the majority are correct, then good for them.

Now go **** yourself.

[Saint KFC]

Did you read the ****ing post?

Of course not. :rolleyes:

How else would you like me to illustrate the stupidity of comparing BHC III to LW 3 & 4?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps you could analyse actual functions of the movie itself; things such as plot, character development, you know, stuff that actually gives the impression that you have half a brain. Or you could continue attempting to qualify your subjective opinion with another subjective opinion.

Your choice really; actually critique the films or continue to put forward your baseless tripe, "people subjectively voted this movie higher therefore it must be better". I could go on and on about how the personal opinions of the masses is not indicative of a film's quality, but I'd much prefer it if you would just take your fallacious bullshit elsewhere.

And some ratings on IMDB are questionable but if a movies shit then the majority will vote accordingly. Which is why most shit movies have shit ratings. (go figure)
Case in point Beverly Hills Cop 3. Are you saying the people are wrong, and this film is in fact not accurately adjudicated by the majority?

No, I'm saying you should attempt to qualify your opinion with anything but another opinion. Common sense, you should try it some time.

And if there is any 'strategic voting' it's tremor would be minor.

It's not a matter of 'if', it's a common fact. Fans of the Dark Knight voted other movies such as The Godfather with 1/10's in order to get it (TDK) up the ladder. People then stopped giving a shit about the TDK and it fell, leaving Shawshank at the number 1 spot. Even if this doesn't directly impact Lethal Weapon, it doesn't really help the credibility of your source; not that your argument had any credibility in the first place.

and the obviously less number of strategic votes would ensure that this has absolutely no impact on the ratings and the ratings are indeed a representation of the opinions of people who have seen the film.

You said it yourself, opinion. Your view is an opinion. IMDB is based wholly on opinion.

Thus when you try and substantiate your opinion with another opinion, you tend to lose all credibility.

People that vote on these films are people who are fans of the series. And certainly the most appropriate people to gauge the respective quality of films in the series and to evaluate any decline in quality.

Firstly, stop making assumptive claims and then basing the crux of your argument on them. Secondly, google the word bias for me.

When an opinion is obviously consistent covering thousands of voters - it gives a more accurate indication than you're likely to get anywhere else.

There's that maaaagic word again; opinion. What's next, referencing a Top 40 chart on the music board? Arguing that Harry Potter is the best book series of all time and referencing sales figures?

The opinion of the masses is not indicative of an item's quality. Pretty simple notion really, not entirely sure why you're struggling to grasp it.

The ridiculous difference in rating and discrepancy from the first two, speaks accurately about the pathetic piece of crap that is BHC III. And if the majority are correct, then good for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy

Yes, I do see the irony in linking to wikipedia.

Now go **** yourself.

Kiss my ring, bitch. I'm done here.

[redman4]

f**king slap!!!

[apollo_creed]

Oh, I don't know, perhaps you could analyse actual functions of the movie itself; things such as plot, character development, you know, stuff that actually gives the impression that you have half a brain.

You obviously haven't seen BHC III then?

It doesn't have any of those things.

Why would I waste my time critically analysing a piece of shit?

Or you could continue attempting to qualify your subjective opinion with another subjective opinion.

Statistics are commonly used to justify the greater opinion in nearly all facets of evaluation.

They're a better gauge of a collective popularity than one person saying 'x, is better than x.' If you have statistical data to substantiate your opinion then that data is your friend.

Critically analysing BHC III does not achieve anything. Other than wasting one's time. When a collective opinion (of many) speaks clearly of your point of criticism/opinion then it's a useful means of justification.

Your choice really; actually critique the films or continue to put forward your baseless tripe,

I'm not a film critic. When a film is a piece of shit I don't need to review it in great detail next to another one. Stating the obvious doesn't require this.


"people subjectively voted this movie higher therefore it must be better".

A collection of thousands of people voted this movie better by a substantial margin - so there is an obvious difference in quality as seen by a majority.

Plot evaluation is subjective as well, so there really is no difference.

I could go on and on about how the personal opinions of the masses is not indicative of a film's quality,

Do you know what a pattern is?


but I'd much prefer it if you would just take your fallacious bullshit elsewhere.


I think we have a Beverly Hills Cop 3 fan on the loose.

No, I'm saying you should attempt to qualify your opinion with anything but another opinion. Common sense, you should try it some time.

A collation is not 'another opinion'.

It's actually data.

Sometimes data speaks the truth. Large discrepancies usually mean something.

It's not a matter of 'if', it's a common fact. Fans of the Dark Knight voted other movies such as The Godfather with 1/10's in order to get it (TDK) up the ladder. People then stopped giving a shit about the TDK and it fell, leaving Shawshank at the number 1 spot.


Right.... and you're aware than IMDB uses a formula to nullify this?

You said it yourself, opinion. Your view is an opinion. IMDB is based wholly on opinion.

Which would be the same as me telling you that BHC III had a stupid plot, idiotic characters and was just the most stupidly written piece of shit ever produced to film.

What's the point? What's the difference? It's still opinion.

Firstly, stop making assumptive claims and then basing the crux of your argument on them. Secondly, google the word bias for me.


Wouldn't I be more prone to bias, if say I was more of a fan of the Lethal Weapon franchise than Beverly Hills Cop?

Bias in this case would be a personal preference.

So how using a large number of opinions equates to bias is anyone's guess.

Kiss my ring, bitch. I'm done here.

Perhaps you could taste the end of my fist, you ****ing **********.

[scooterb]

I'm with a apollo on this one.

When comparing 3 direct sequels, using a large survey with thousands of votes is a plausible and acceptable method in detecting any differences in quality.

Obviously it would be ridiculous to compare Citizen Kane and Independence Day based on their IMDB ratings because they are in no way related to one another.

A very similar crowd would be giving their ratings to the 4 Lethal Weapon movies.

Unless you are arguing that the enjoyment of watching a film doesn't correspond to its level of quality, I can't understand where you are coming from.

Your personal rankings may be different (not correct or incorrect, either) to that of the general publics', but there is no denying that 3 wasn't as good as 1. Nearly every single film buff believes this, as seen by the data provided by IMDB.

[SunKing]

I can't even remember BHC3 and I know I watched it. I do vaguely remember it being extremely average compared to the excellent first one and very good second one.

[Saint KFC]

You obviously haven't seen BHC III then?

It doesn't have any of those things.

Why would I waste my time critically analysing a piece of shit?

Because that's the only way that you're view is going to come across as anything other than an opinionated piece of shit.

Statistics are commonly used to justify the greater opinion in nearly all facets of evaluation.

Opinion. Not fact.

Most people try and qualify their opinion with a somewhat objective fact.

Idiots try and qualify their opinion with another subjective opinion. Dolt.

They're a better gauge of a collective popularity than one person saying 'x, is better than x.'

That's exactly what IMDB is you dumbass, and for the final ****ing time, popularity is not ****ing indicative of the ****ing movies ****ing quality.

If you have statistical data to substantiate your opinion then that data is your friend.

I have statistical data to substantiate my opinion that the Harry Potter series is better than George Orwell's 1984, in the form of sales figures.

Oh ****. Sales figures are based on popularity, which is a subjective quantity. Oh ****. Popularity isn't indicative of quality in any way shape or form. Oh ****. Nearly made myself look like I'm completely devoid of cognitive function. :rolleyes:

Critically analysing BHC III does not achieve anything.

But referencing peoples opinions does? :o

Other than wasting one's time.

You seem to be doing a great job of it.

When a collective opinion (of many) speaks clearly of your point of criticism/opinion then it's a useful means of justification.

No, it really isn't. At all.

I'm not a film critic.

Would never have guessed. :rolleyes: Your the type of person whose music tastes are dictated by the Top 40 charts; I mean, the collective opinion (of many) speaks clearly that the Black Eyed Peas are one of the best bands of the past decade.

Oh wait; that's your fallacious argument, not mine.

When a film is a piece of shit

Opinion.

I don't need to review it in great detail next to another one. Stating the obvious doesn't require this.

Opinion.

A collection of thousands of people voted this movie better by a substantial margin - so there is an obvious difference in quality as seen by a majority.

Yes, the same majority that listens to the Top 40 charts.

Plot evaluation is subjective as well, so there really is no difference.

If you honestly think that it isn't a more objective means of analysis than referencing people's subjective opinions, than you truly are dumber than I thought you were, and I think you're pretty damn ****ing dumb.

Do you know what a pattern is?

Do you know what an opinion is?
Do you know what a fallacy is?
Do you know what subjective and objective means?
Do you know what a brain is?

I think we have a Beverly Hills Cop 3 fan on the loose.

I don't even think I've seen a full Lethal Weapon movie, the only scene I remember is one in which the black cop who is nearing retirement has a bomb placed on his toilet. As for BHC, I haven't seen any. Try not to make assumptive claims dumbass.

A collation is not 'another opinion'.

It's actually data.

A data of people's opinions.

Sometimes data speaks the truth.

Piss off with the newspeak chump. There is objective, empirical data based in fact, and then there is a collection of people's subjective opinions. I know which one I would be using to back my argument, and it certainly isn't the one you've chosen.

Large discrepancies usually mean something.

I guess the Black Eyed Peas truly are better than nearly every single metal band in existence and the majority of indie bands. I guess the large discrepancy between the sales pertaining to the Harry Potter series and nearly every other book in existence means something.

Maybe, just maybe, it means that the opinion of the general public is typically pants and thus is not a reliable source? In fact, **** that, opinions are never reliable sources.

Right.... and you're aware than IMDB uses a formula to nullify this?

Right.... and you're aware that it doesn't work?

Wouldn't I be more prone to bias, if say I was more of a fan of the Lethal Weapon franchise than Beverly Hills Cop?
So how using a large number of opinions equates to bias is anyone's guess.

If you could interpret syntax adequately you would have realised that I wasn't referring to you, and neither was the context of the text. Instead of me spoon feeding you simple information, I'll let you go back and figure that one out for yourself. Who knows, you may even learn something for a change.

Don't flatter yourself.

Perhaps you could taste the end of my fist, you ****ing **********.

After taking a look at your avatar, I'm going to take a guess that your fist has been rooted in the same place as the source of your argument.

[Saint KFC]

I'm with a apollo on this one.

For you, I will explain it nicely.

When comparing 3 direct sequels, using a large survey with thousands of votes is a plausible and acceptable method in detecting any differences in quality.

Acceptable where champ? Take it to any recognised place of tertiary education and see if you won't be laughed out of the building.

Obviously it would be ridiculous to compare Citizen Kane and Independence Day based on their IMDB ratings because they are in no way related to one another.

That's not the point. You can't make a subjective opinion, back it up with other people's opinions and try and pass it off as fact; you just can't.

A very similar crowd would be giving their ratings to the 4 Lethal Weapon movies.

Irrelevant. Not sure where you're getting this idea from that if the sample size remains constant then the difference in ratings are accurate. Take another sample size, and see if the difference in ratings between the movies is the same.

Unless you are arguing that the enjoyment of watching a film doesn't correspond to its level of quality, I can't understand where you are coming from.

What I'm trying to argue is that when people try to put forward a point, they shouldn't use the public opinion to back it up. That's all, I couldn't give a flying **** about the quality of the individual movies; it's just that apollo's argument is based in fallacy, and thus even if it is right, he hasn't substantiated his claim with anything of substance.

Your personal rankings may be different (not correct or incorrect, either) to that of the general publics', but there is no denying that 3 wasn't as good as 1.

But it's opinion mate, that's the thing. Some people prefer Godfather 1, some people prefer Godfather 2. Tell me, what would hold more substance in a debate:

"Godfather 2 is better than Godfather 1 because the people on IMDB have voted so."

"Godfather 2 is better than Godfather 1 due to the plot (plot juxtaposition here), the characters (character analysis here), etc etc."

Do you see my point mate? That's all I'm trying to put forward here; apollo can have his opinion, but he shouldn't use other people's opinions to qualify it.


That's all for me in this thread, sorry it had to be dragged through the mud. But if you haven't got my point by now, you never will. It's been fun fellas, I'll let apollo have his moment from here on in.

[apollo_creed]

I thought you were done here SaintKFC.

So much for that grand exit of yours, in a thread about a film series you say you've never seen more than two minutes of.

[Damon_3388]

yoN6XfyQsr4

"Thou shalt not judge a book by its cover. Thou shalt not judge Lethal Weapon by Danny Glover" :p

[Saint KFC]

I thought you were done here SaintKFC.

So much for that grand exit of yours, in a thread about a film series you say you've never seen more than two minutes of.

I changed my mind, but I legitimately haven't seen more than two minutes of the Lethal Weapon series and none of BHC.

[Mr_Smooth]

Number 2 is an awesome film, being a bit undersold here, one of the best sequels ever.
agree with this, best sequel since back to the future 2! (ironically may have been released before, but whose checking... ;))

[footy_4_life]

Have never been able to make a particular one my fav.

imo they are all pretty much on par with each other. All great !!!

I watched #1 last night for 1st time in ages and was kinda funny to watch the stupid mistakes in this movie. Though, still gotta love it.

[Tweezersthegreat]

'Don't you go being a smart kaffir now'

[apollo_creed]

biscuits?