Things you're tired of seeing in movies.

2456719

Comments

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Murdock wrote:
    Adam Sandler movies. He stopped being funny back in 2002.

    The last film of his I watched and enjoyed somewhat was Happy Gilmore, a very long time ago.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2014 Posts: 10,512
    CGI
    Lack of fresh ideas (see above for remakes/reboots)

    The awful thing is, there are lots of brilliant original ideas out there, but original ideas don't guarantee money. It's probably my least favourite aspect of commercial media. The only way original ideas find there way to market is through blind luck, or because they've been achieved on a shoe-string, and that's a horrible fact.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Adam Sandler movies. He stopped being funny back in 2002.

    The last film of his I watched and enjoyed somewhat was Happy Gilmore, a very long time ago.

    Agreed. I've seen his recent movies. Grownups 2 and Jack and Jill. They were bad vanity projects.
  • SaintMark wrote:
    Reboots and thinking that it will change anything at all, and then discovering that the audience was perfectly happy with the older product.

    Remakes without some identity of their own { it should be done like Philadephia - High Society, The Bourne Identity miniseries vs The Bourne Identity }

    Remaking old tv shows into movies and they they are totally not the same and more often cr*p.

    Well said. I'm afraid the next "Equalizer" movie will fall into this categorie.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Yes, the amount of superhero films in line is overwhelming, bordering on ridiculous.
    I would have KILLED for times like these a couple of decades ago!

    Yeap! As long as superheros movies are as good as the Iron Man trilogy, the Avengers or Thor they can release them by the dozens every year.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Murdock wrote:
    Adam Sandler movies. He stopped being funny back in 2002.

    Oh yes, I agree with that one.

    I miss Michael Keaton, though ...
  • Posts: 7,653
    Murdock wrote:
    Adam Sandler movies. He stopped being funny back in 2002.

    Oh yes, I agree with that one.

    I miss Michael Keaton, though ...

    The one true BATMAN.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    And I just had a thought: so thankful that the Kardashians and Miley have not made a dent in films. Ugh!

    I also could do without so many comic book/super hero movies; we are flooded. The quality of The Avengers and Iron Man does make me happy, but there are so many now it is just too much; I cannot help feeling it seems like it has become a crowded cafeteria rather than a fine dining experience.

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    And I just had a thought: so thankful that the Kardashians and Miley have not made a dent in films. Ugh!

    I also could do without so many comic book/super hero movies; we are flooded. The quality of The Avengers and Iron Man does make me happy, but there are so many now it is just too much; I cannot help feeling it seems like it has become a crowded cafeteria rather than a fine dining experience.

    Nicely put. And I sincerely hope that the likes of Miley Cyrus do not make a debut on the silver screen. :-&
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Actors/Actress's cast for their looks rather than acting talent.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Murdock wrote:
    Actors/Actress's cast for their looks rather than acting talent.

    cough Denise Richards cough
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote:
    Yes, the amount of superhero films in line is overwhelming, bordering on ridiculous.
    I would have KILLED for times like these a couple of decades ago!

    Exactly. Remember when a freaking Superman movie was announced, and you read snippets of information in papers and comic magazines? Then Batman a decade later. There was a time when we kids were envious of the cinema audience of the 40s and 50s when they had those serializations with Lewis Wilson, Kirk Alyn and George Reeves. was no youtube back in the 70s, so you only knew they existed from reading about them in superhero magazines. I love the 21st century!
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote:
    Actors/Actress's cast for their looks rather than acting talent.

    cough Denise Richards cough

    I do give Denise some credit. She makes fun of herself for it in an episode of 30 Rock. :p
  • Posts: 2,341

    Murdock, dude you hit the nail on the head. I would like to add:

    Ron Howard films

    Remakes of timeless classics, i.e King Kong, Gone with the Wind, Psycho, Total Recall to name a few...

    George Lucas continuing to jerk around with his Star Wars franchise

    Overkill on sequels (Saw, Jaws, Chainsaw Massacre, etc)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    OHMSS69 wrote:

    Ron Howard films

    Remakes of timeless classics, i.e King Kong

    Rush is a brilliant film and I think Jackson's Kong remake is superb and justified.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Not that I ever watch them, but sequels to the old classic Disney films is close to sacrilege. Those were among the greatest works of art from the period late 30s to the early 70s.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I think remakes are okay. Just there has to be a big gap between films. Like King Kong, that's great. So is the Jackson remake. But when a franchise is rebooted 10 years after the original film, that's overkill.
  • Posts: 2,341
    @RC7
    I beg to differ in regards to King Kong. It took Peter Jackson 3 hours to tell a story he could tell in 90 minutes. Ape finds girl, Ape looses girl, Ape finds girl, man kills ape. There.

    Peter Jackson's film is one of the main problems with Hollywood and what this board is about: obscession ( my spelling) with CGI. The attitude that "we can make it better than they did in 1933". I bet Jackson was just creaming his pants when he got the green light to shytt all over a timeless movie like King Kong.

    Sure the dialogue is corney, the acting is over the top (most films in the early 30's did this because actors and directors had come up during the silent era when over the top was the norm.) But the characters are so endearing. I loved Faye Wray, Robert Armstrong's Carl Denham, Bruce Cabot, Frank Reichert, Nobel Johnson...
    For Jackson to have the natives be slaughtered by the automatic weapons harkens back to the time of those goddamn Tarzan films. Who needs that shit in the 21st century?

    Forgive my rant, I'm losing focus.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    @RC7
    I beg to differ in regards to King Kong. It took Peter Jackson 3 hours to tell a story he could tell in 90 minutes. Ape finds girl, Ape looses girl, Ape finds girl, man kills ape. There.

    Peter Jackson's film is one of the main problems with Hollywood and what this board is about: obscession ( my spelling) with CGI. The attitude that "we can make it better than they did in 1933". I bet Jackson was just creaming his pants when he got the green light to shytt all over a timeless movie like King Kong.

    Sure the dialogue is corney, the acting is over the top (most films in the early 30's did this because actors and directors had come up during the silent era when over the top was the norm.) But the characters are so endearing. I loved Faye Wray, Robert Armstrong's Carl Denham, Bruce Cabot, Frank Reichert, Nobel Johnson...
    For Jackson to have the natives be slaughtered by the automatic weapons harkens back to the time of those goddamn Tarzan films. Who needs that shit in the 21st century?

    Forgive my rant, I'm losing focus.

    Jackson's King Kong is a bloated, snoozefest of a film. You have it spot on in your rant.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Peter Jackson's film is one of the main problems with Hollywood and what this board is about: obscession ( my spelling) with CGI. The attitude that "we can make it better than they did in 1933".

    I think, given the 70 year gap he can be cut a little slack on wanting to reversion, arguably, the film that started his love with effects photography. It was hardly a Total Recall scenario, a film that simply didn't need making and was not instigated by anyone with a passion for the source material. I liked King Kong, I thought it was visually stunning, great score and Serkis doing himself proud, yet again. I can see why some would dislike it.
  • Murdock wrote:
    Adam Sandler movies. He stopped being funny back in 2002.

    Well said, Murdock! Adam Sandler movies make ridiculous money for the lack of comedy they constantly disappoint viewers with.

    Also, another thing I'm tired of is Peter Segal directed movoes. He uses high rate actors and wastes their talent with unfunny material. There's often very low low regard for females in his movies.
  • Murdock wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Actors/Actress's cast for their looks rather than acting talent.

    cough Denise Richards cough

    I do give Denise some credit. She makes fun of herself for it in an episode of 30 Rock. :p

    Meghan Fox..cough cough
  • Posts: 1,778
    Something else I've always been sick of is singers/athletes getting big roles in major motion pictures despite the fact that the didn't earn their way there in any way, shape or form.

    In a similar vein I don't like it when actors decide to become directors and immediately get a huge gig just based on their name. Somehow I doubt they worked their way up as a gaffer, editor, etc.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Something else I've always been sick of is singers/athletes getting big roles in major motion pictures despite the fact that the didn't earn their way there in any way, shape or form.

    In a similar vein I don't like it when actors decide to become directors and immediately get a huge gig just based on their name. Somehow I doubt they worked their way up as a gaffer, editor, etc.

    Definitely. It's amazing what wealth and status can do. Horrible state of affairs.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited March 2014 Posts: 24,183
    Family sports films with a message of hope that starts with a piano playing, features a nice coach, a crying soccer mum, a dog and a kid in a wheel chair.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2014 Posts: 17,800
    Well, I'm tired of seeing remakes that "improve" on the original. The 1997 Lost In Space is a prime example. Just give us the gorram REAL Jupiter 2 and Robot, THEN do what you want with the story!!!
  • Posts: 1,778
    RC7 wrote:
    Something else I've always been sick of is singers/athletes getting big roles in major motion pictures despite the fact that the didn't earn their way there in any way, shape or form.

    In a similar vein I don't like it when actors decide to become directors and immediately get a huge gig just based on their name. Somehow I doubt they worked their way up as a gaffer, editor, etc.

    Definitely. It's amazing what wealth and status can do. Horrible state of affairs.

    Since we're on the subject, all of the family nepotism in Hollywood is also really horrible. For years now Will Smith has spent millions of dollars trying to convince us that his talentless son is a star. To little success. It's never nice to take joy in another's failure but I'm happy After Earth bombed. Maybe that'll discourage studios from allowing a movie star and his son to create their own 130 million dollar family vanity project.
  • Posts: 5,994
    RC7 wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Peter Jackson's film is one of the main problems with Hollywood and what this board is about: obscession ( my spelling) with CGI. The attitude that "we can make it better than they did in 1933".

    I think, given the 70 year gap he can be cut a little slack on wanting to reversion, arguably, the film that started his love with effects photography. It was hardly a Total Recall scenario, a film that simply didn't need making and was not instigated by anyone with a passion for the source material. I liked King Kong, I thought it was visually stunning, great score and Serkis doing himself proud, yet again. I can see why some would dislike it.

    Try 30 years gap. And Jackson's movie was better than the 1976 movie. The only good thing about that remake is that it gave us Jessica Lange.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    Gerard wrote:
    Try 30 years gap. And Jackson's movie was better than the 1976 movie. The only good thing about that remake is that it gave us Jessica Lange.
    You MAY be forgetting the awesome score here... ;)
  • Posts: 5,994
    Yes, there is that. But John Barry has almost always given his best work even if the movies themselves weren't good (cough Starcrash cough)
Sign In or Register to comment.