Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Shannon L.

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

I really dig Tom Cruise as an actor. I don't know him as a person and don't know of anything morally reprehensible that he's done, so his seeming strangeness doesn't effect how I view the way he does his job.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I really dig Tom Cruise as an actor. I don't know him as a person and don't know of anything morally reprehensible that he's done, so his seeming strangeness doesn't effect how I view the way he does his job.

 

I just mentioned Tom Cruise in the Sports Movies thread, by way of Jerry Maguire.

 

I do think that movie really showcases just why he was a megastar for so long. He's got bags of charisma and charm, and he's eminently watchable. That's more than a lot of actors can boast. But, I do think he seems like a really weird guy in real life, and I think that does affect the views a lot of people have of him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I really dig Tom Cruise as an actor. I don't know him as a person and don't know of anything morally reprehensible that he's done, so his seeming strangeness doesn't effect how I view the way he does his job.

 

I like him as an actor as well.  It seems like a lot of the (American) public dislike of him relates to his association with Scientology.  And yes, no doubt that the religion is strange and twisted, but as an atheist, I don't think it's less so than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I like him as an actor as well.  It seems like a lot of the (American) public dislike of him relates to his association with Scientology.  And yes, no doubt that the religion is strange and twisted, but as an atheist, I don't think it's less so than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

Yes I think he is a fine actor and I don't care about his personal life. I appreciate how much effort he puts into his roles / movies and tries to make them good.

 

I suspect that people really don't hate him or his religion, I think it is just that people get sick of actors that are always in their face. Tom should focus more on producing / directing and give the audience a break. Once they had a break I think they would like to see him again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind Tom Cruise in the movies I see him in. I tend not to see most of the movies he's in, because he concentrates on big budget event suspense, which is among my least favorite genres.

 

I will admit that I'm less likely to watch one of his movies because i find him annoying, but it's less because of what his religion is and more about the fact that he uses his status as a popular actor to advocate for things he knows little about, and I think many of his views are dangerous and wrong. If those things are tenets of his religion, he's got every right to believe in them and advocate for them, morally and legally. However: neither the first amendment or basic decency gives him a get out of jail free card for, say, stigmatizing mental health care or pretending post-partum depression isn't a serious condition which needs treatment.

 

I guess I figure I have a finite amount of time and money, and unless I find a project really compelling otherwise I don't see any reason to help Tom Cruise be more successful. He wears it badly.

Edited by Julia
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

That's fair, and is likely the popular opinion, which is why his movies don't do that well in the US anymore. 

 

I suspect that people really don't hate him or his religion, I think it is just that people get sick of actors that are always in their face. Tom should focus more on producing / directing and give the audience a break. Once they had a break I think they would like to see him again.

 

Unless he's promoting a film, is he putting himself out there? How is he in the public's face? Legitimate question on this, since I'm often purposely oblivious to press and public appearances for celebrities. 

Share this post


Link to post

Unless he's promoting a film, is he putting himself out there? How is he in the public's face? Legitimate question on this, since I'm often purposely oblivious to press and public appearances for celebrities. 

 

He is in a movie like every 6 months. And he does press on them. I am just sick of seeing him.  Also there is usually some controversy that follows his films... such as him playing "Jack Reacher".

Share this post


Link to post

I used to like Tom Cruise.  In his earlier movies he oozed impish charm.  The break for me came not so much from his religion (to each his own) but from the weird stunts like jumping on Oprah's couch and arguing with Matt Lauer about depression.  It showed him to be pretty much a pretty but empty suit.  And lately he seems to be playing the same character over and over, whether it's a thriller like Reacher or any of the recent Sci Fi movies he's made.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I used to like Tom Cruise.  In his earlier movies he oozed impish charm.  The break for me came not so much from his religion (to each his own) but from the weird stunts like jumping on Oprah's couch and arguing with Matt Lauer about depression.  It showed him to be pretty much a pretty but empty suit.  And lately he seems to be playing the same character over and over, whether it's a thriller like Reacher or any of the recent Sci Fi movies he's made.

 

That's nothing new. Rich Hall said it best:

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

My own UO I like Star Wars Episode IV better than Empire Strikes Back. I just don't think ESB is this great spiritual epic that others think it is. Also, when Star Wars came out there was no anticipation for a sequel, the movie stands on its own. It was just great fun.

 

 

Thank you! I agree. I also liked the idea that 'the Force' could be in anyone if they had faith in themselves(not just a select group) and were willing to work hard to do what was right [and I could easily imagine how they eventually defeated the Empire forever on my own without the sequels]. That said, I did like ROTJ  in that through faith, good organization and hard work one could overcome incredible odds and even redeem someone thought by everyone (themselves included) to be iredeemable. However, via all the 'remakes', others' novelizations and 'prequels', Lucas couldn't leave well enough alone and the entire point of the enterprise got perverted into a celebration of cruelty and sadism while ridiculing idealism and mercy . It was like a cook who made a good stew but then kept adding/subtracting ingredients until the stock was unrecognizable then vomitted into[ and there was STILL gluttons who wouldn't  quit eating it and pretending it was good]. I saw the OT many times but  I could only sit through the 'prequels' once and only if they sincerely attempt to reverse the downward spiral that's overwhelmed it ever since  the end of ROTJ will I consider seeing the newest one next year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care for Brad Pitt. I find his acting monotone and wooden. And I know that he's been voted sexiest man alive numerous times but the dude does nothing for me. Kudos to him for his humanitarian work but that's pretty much it. 

 

  Thank you! Perhaps  the most failed opportunity of Thelma and Louise was when the protagonists first saw Brad Pitt on the side of the road and Geena Davis begged Susan Sarandon to pick him up since he reminds her of a puppy- then made puppy sounds until Susan did so. How I wish [for the characters' and movie's sakes ]that Susan responded 'Quit whimpering like that or I'll put YOU out on the side of the road with him!' and the two just kept on driving past him.

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

That Rich Hall clip is great! I have friends who describe any Tom Cruise movie as "Cocktails with _______" so that clip was doubly funny.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Considering all the Affleck hate in here, I'm going to confess my unpopular opinion: I have a deep, abiding love for Jersey Girl. I certainly would never argue for it as a great movie, but I love it.

 

I also don't get the appeal of Jennifer Lawrence. I think she can be very good (Winter's Bone, Poker House), but I hated Silver Linings Playbook and I always catch her acting. And I don't find her all that amusing in real life.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Jersey Girl was a cute movie.  Nevertheless, I shall trump you...I didn't think Gigli was the godawful movie it was derided as.  At worst, it was boring, but hardly exceptional in that. I never understood all of the hate for it.

 

A more recent UO: I thought Guardians of the Galaxy was just ok.

 

I've not seen it, though I'm curious, why do you feel this way?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
I've not seen it, though I'm curious, why do you feel this way?

 

 

I think hearing all the effusive praise for it - in reviews, on social media, etc. - made me have higher expectations than I normally would for a superhero movie.. And then I saw it, and my reaction was "that's it?"

 

I mean, don't get me wrong: I enjoyed the movie. It was funny and even moving in parts. But a pinnacle of the genre? I'm just not seeing it.

Share this post


Link to post

Considering all the Affleck hate in here, I'm going to confess my unpopular opinion: I have a deep, abiding love for Jersey Girl. I certainly would never argue for it as a great movie, but I love it.

 

I also don't get the appeal of Jennifer Lawrence. I think she can be very good (Winter's Bone, Poker House), but I hated Silver Linings Playbook and I always catch her acting. And I don't find her all that amusing in real life.

I agree on Jennifer Lawrence. I find her kind of obnoxious in real life actually. If that's the way she acts with real people that is so not the kind of person I'd want to hang out with. Talk about self-centered. Everything she says is just screaming "look at me, look at me, I'm the the coolest funniest person in this room and don't you dare look or pay attention to anyone else!" It seems very forced, like all the attention HAS to be focused on her at all times. I don't find it appealing.

 

And I actually think she's been good in the stuff I've seen her in (although not THAT great- I think people are mistaking great for loud in her case), but her real life personality is starting to make me dislike seeing her in movies too.

Share this post


Link to post

I think hearing all the effusive praise for it - in reviews, on social media, etc. - made me have higher expectations than I normally would for a superhero movie.. And then I saw it, and my reaction was "that's it?"

 

I mean, don't get me wrong: I enjoyed the movie. It was funny and even moving in parts. But a pinnacle of the genre? I'm just not seeing it.

 

Thanks for elaborating.  I can relate to the feeling.

Share this post


Link to post

I think what happened with Tom Cruise was the very public view of his personal life, which for most of his career, Cruise had taken great pains to keep private.  Some people are private for a reason, and in Cruise's case, all that publicity backfired on him.  Previously, when his movies didn't do well, he was well-received as a person and actor.  

 

When he hooked up with Katie Holmes, he was jumping on couches, screaming from the rooftops how crazy he was about her.  Even then, it seemed so weird, his behavior was bordering on manic.  Yet he never did that when he was with Mimi Rogers or Nicole Kidman, the latter of which being very famous and respected in her own right.  Plus, some of the public felt Katie Holmes was far too young for him (16 year age difference) and Cruise was a cradle-robber.  At any rate, the media ate it up.  There were numerous headlines about "TomKat", their baby, and their future together.  It got really old, really fast.

 

Cruise had been a member of Scientology since the 80s (Mimi Rogers introduced him to it) but this was the first time that he was vocal about how much he supported their practices, most of which didn't sit well with the public, and then he aired his ridiculous views regarding psychology.  He told Matt Lauer that he considered post-partum depression to be a joke, which made him look like a first class asshole.  Which resulted in celebrities like Brooke Shields rightfully lambasting him about disrespecting something he couldn't possibly understand, which made him lose the public favor even more.  His movies were only doing OK (Lions for Lambs, War of the Worlds, and Valkyrie all tanked) so that wasn't helping matters.

 

I think that's why Cruise took the role of Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder, to try something different and lampoon his sexy guy image.  But it was a good movie, and he pulled off the role very well.  Still, box office numbers have been dropping steadily for years, and I don't know if he can make a huge difference, even with the public on his side.  Edge of Tomorrow got good reviews, but underperformed in the box office.  It seems that a movie has to be part of a franchise (Avengers, X-Men, Twilight, Hunger Games, etc) to make big money these days, and movies like those aren't for every actor.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

In what I'm sure will be an unpopular opinion if the reviews are anything to go by, I didn't entirely hate The Giver when I saw it yesterday. I just see it as its own entity separate from the book, kinda like what think of with the new Trek films and everything that came before it, and it's an okay film on its own.

Share this post


Link to post

I tried to watch The Hurt Locker and found myself bored to the point of switching to some mindless fare on cable TV. Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled that the Motion Picture Academy flipped James Cameron the bird by giving it all those Oscars, but ideally I'd like for a Best Picture winner to be compelling enough that I actually feel motivated to keep watching until the end. (Movies like Driving Miss Daisy and The English Patient certainly had no difficulties in that regard...)

Share this post


Link to post

I think what happened with Tom Cruise was the very public view of his personal life, which for most of his career, Cruise had taken great pains to keep private.  Some people are private for a reason, and in Cruise's case, all that publicity backfired on him.  Previously, when his movies didn't do well, he was well-received as a person and actor.  

 

My understanding is that for most of his career Tom Cruise's people (agent, manager that sort of thing) were some of the best in the business. The kind of people where even if you were totally crazy they could keep it under wraps. But then at some point he fired those people and hired someone related to him (I think maybe a sister in law or cousin or something) who was much more into Scientology but wasn't as good at controlling her client and the press. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I tried to watch The Hurt Locker and found myself bored to the point of switching to some mindless fare on cable TV. Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled that the Motion Picture Academy flipped James Cameron the bird by giving it all those Oscars, but ideally I'd like for a Best Picture winner to be compelling enough that I actually feel motivated to keep watching until the end.

I didn't dislike it, but I really didn't see why it was considered for an Oscar, let alone win. It was more of an "eh" kind of feeling.  I should post it in the "Movies that didn't live up to your expectations thread".  I find, though, that I'm not impressed with a lot of movies up for Best Picture anyway. Last year, I saw all of the best picture nominations except one and felt that four of them were ok, three were excellent and one that I did not like at all.  The year before I saw 6 of the 9 and loved three of them, hated one and thought the other two were just ok. 

 

Speaking of best pictures over the last couple of years, I'm not sure if I've already posted this or not, but of the nominated films I saw last year, Captain Phillips was my favorite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that for most of his career Tom Cruise's people (agent, manager that sort of thing) were some of the best in the business. The kind of people where even if you were totally crazy they could keep it under wraps. But then at some point he fired those people and hired someone related to him (I think maybe a sister in law or cousin or something) who was much more into Scientology but wasn't as good at controlling her client and the press.

 

 

That's exactly what happened.  The year of the Oprah couch jumping is the same one where Tom fired his long time PR people and replaced them with his sister.  He then replaced her with more competent people less than a year-ish later.  I guarantee that his original people and the ones who replaced his sister would never have advised him to behave the way he did on Oprah and the Today Show.  They probably see more of his crazy than we ever have and know it's best to keep it under wraps.  If he hadn't hired his sister, I might still be a fan but his behavior that year turned me off for good.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The thing about Tom Cruise is that his persona relied on being the generic charming, cocky guy that you just can't help but like, and you could project anything on. Once we got to know a bit more of how crazy he actually is, the bloom went off what had been a very long-lived rose.

 

I wasn't wild about The Avengers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wasn't wild about The Avengers.

I liked the Avengers, although I thought the level of praise that Joss Whedon got for that movie was way more than what was deserved. I mean most of the heavy lifting creatively was already done. All of the main characters had been introduced and their characters developed. He was most certainly told who the main villain would be. And he had 40+ years of source material to draw on. So basically he knew that Nick Fury would assemble the avengers, to stop Loki from taking over the world before he even started writing a thing. Sure it ended up being a great movie but I am sure there were a lot of writer/directors who could have pulled off just as good a movie.

Share this post


Link to post

They're all far fetched, but I think the constant with the first three is that they're mired in human mythology. Gods and monsters. And in the world Indy inhabits, I can believe in the Ark of the Covenant and human sacrifices to Kali and the Holy Grail. Those ideas fit the adventure series roots, and they fit the idea of Indy as a heroic archaeologist. But aliens? Even ancient aliens? I just think it was an extremely poor fit for the series.

And even if it hadn't been a poor fit, the execution was terrible. Muddled story, boring characters, Shia Labeouf, too much CGI and not enough practical stunts. That last point was a big one for me, because as a kid, I adored the sequence with Indy clambering over the truck and fighting the Nazis. It was amazing. And even today, I think it holds up pretty well as a practical set piece. It looks and feels real. The cartoon chase through the jungle, with vine swinging monkeys (and douchebags), swordfighting and god knows what else? For me it was the opposite of what made the first movies so great. 'Less is more' was summed up perfectly when Indy shot the swordsman in Cairo. It seems like Spielberg forgot that lesson.

 

 

My unpopular opinion is that I didn't mind kingdom of the crystal skull. I think if they got rid of Shia (or replaced him with a more competent young actor, or got rid of Indy Jr. and replaced him with a grown up Short Round) and got rid of the bad CGI it would have been a really good movie. Roger Ebert said that Raiders is remembered fondly primary because it came out first and all three are just as goofy. Surviving in a nuclear blast in a fridge is no more ridiculous than surviving jumping out of a plane by riding an inflatable raft, or surviving hanging on to the outside of a submarine (with no food or water or protection from the elements) as it travels from the middle of the Mediterranean sea to the Aegean sea (which would have taken at least a couple of days) and then being totally fine when the sub docks.

 

As for the Aliens, I didn't really mind using them instead of human mythology. I mean do people have the same complaints about the Marvel Cinematic universe and how they turned mythology into aliens (Thor)? Plus the use of aliens totally works for me since it is set in the 1950's.

Share this post


Link to post

I love The Avengers, but never got what was so wonderful about Agent Coulson. He was just… there, to me. 

I thought he was a good enough supporting character in Iron Man and Thor, but he was just cringeworthy in The Avengers. Trying to make him into a character I'm supposed to love had the opposite effect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My unpopular opinion is that I didn't mind kingdom of the crystal skull. I think if they got rid of Shia (or replaced him with a more competent young actor, or got rid of Indy Jr. and replaced him with a grown up Short Round) and got rid of the bad CGI it would have been a really good movie. Roger Ebert said that Raiders is remembered fondly primary because it came out first and all three are just as goofy. Surviving in a nuclear blast in a fridge is no more ridiculous than surviving jumping out of a plane by riding an inflatable raft, or surviving hanging on to the outside of a submarine (with no food or water or protection from the elements) as it travels from the middle of the Mediterranean sea to the Aegean sea (which would have taken at least a couple of days) and then being totally fine when the sub docks.

 

As for the Aliens, I didn't really mind using them instead of human mythology. I mean do people have the same complaints about the Marvel Cinematic universe and how they turned mythology into aliens (Thor)? Plus the use of aliens totally works for me since it is set in the 1950's.

 

Not to mention the Soviet Union was big into UFOs and stuff like that.  Crystal Skull wasn't perfect but I definitely enjoyed it.  The Soviets fit in well for the villains.  Seeing aliens took some getting used to, definitely, but as pointed out this is a series with spirits melting Nazis, a dude ripping out another dude's heart, and an immortal knight.  Are aliens really so hard to believe?

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't like Captain America, thought Winter Soldier was a small improvement (mainly because of Scarlett Johansson and Anthony Mackie) but I didn't think it was 'the most amazing Marvel film ever' as I've been seeing everywhere. I like Chris Evans, but I prefer his snarky 'Johnny Storm' type characters, I just wasn't that interested in Captain America.

 

And Thor was my favourite solo character Marvel movie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I didn't like Captain America, thought Winter Soldier was a small improvement (mainly because of Scarlett Johansson and Anthony Mackie) but I didn't think it was 'the most amazing Marvel film ever' as I've been seeing everywhere. I like Chris Evans, but I prefer his snarky 'Johnny Storm' type characters, I just wasn't that interested in Captain America.

 

And Thor was my favourite solo character Marvel movie.

 

My UO is that I don't like movies based on comic books at all. The Avengers, Iron Man, X-Men, the multiple Spiderman, Batman, and Superman franchises--I have no desire to see them and only watched the ones that I did because my kids begged me to take them. And I was bored out of my mind, though Robert Downey Jr.'s good acting gave Iron Man 3 some funny moments. I did enjoy the original Superman franchise. To me, Christopher Reeve is the only Superman that matters.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

 

I didn't like Captain America, thought Winter Soldier was a small improvement (mainly because of Scarlett Johansson and Anthony Mackie) but I didn't think it was 'the most amazing Marvel film ever' as I've been seeing everywhere.

That's funny because among everything I've heard around here, from my friends and FB feeds, etc, was that Captain America was considered by far the weakest of the bunch, so it surprised me that you've been hearing the opposite.  I liked it, but didn't find it as engaging as the others.  I also thought Thor was great and I've seen that one ranked very close to Captain American in terms of what people thought about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not to mention the Soviet Union was big into UFOs and stuff like that.  Crystal Skull wasn't perfect but I definitely enjoyed it.  The Soviets fit in well for the villains.  Seeing aliens took some getting used to, definitely, but as pointed out this is a series with spirits melting Nazis, a dude ripping out another dude's heart, and an immortal knight.  Are aliens really so hard to believe?

 

As I said in my post, I don't think aliens fit the world of Indiana Jones very well, because they are so different than all the mythology the movies had drawn from previously. And, this is my personal view, but I think the whole crystal skulls/ancient aliens/pyramids/Nazca Lines theories are complete hokum. To me, they're modern silliness, rather than the age old myths of the Ark, the Holy Grail and Hindu cults. So again, I don't think they fit the franchise. But really, the aliens were not the biggest issue. They could have worked, if the movie was any good. But the entire thing was just poorly executed and poorly thought out, that it didn't really matter to me what the macguffin was.

 

As to the believability of certain action set pieces, I think you help your audience suspend their disbelief if you actually create the set piece using practical effects. For the most part, I think people can see CGI, however good it is, and there's just something about it that strikes us as 'wrong' and jarring.

Share this post


Link to post

As I said in my post, I don't think aliens fit the world of Indiana Jones very well, because they are so different than all the mythology the movies had drawn from previously. And, this is my personal view, but I think the whole crystal skulls/ancient aliens/pyramids/Nazca Lines theories are complete hokum. To me, they're modern silliness, rather than the age old myths of the Ark, the Holy Grail and Hindu cults. So again, I don't think they fit the franchise. 

So I am curious, did you have the same problem with the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Because they basically did the same thing by saying that Thor and Loki weren't actually mythological gods, but actually extremely advanced nearly immortal aliens.

 

As to the believability of certain action set pieces, I think you help your audience suspend their disbelief if you actually create the set piece using practical effects. For the most part, I think people can see CGI, however good it is, and there's just something about it that strikes us as 'wrong' and jarring.

 

I see your point about that one. Although at the same time, in Raiders the hanging on the outside of the submarine for 2 days was neither a set piece or CG. They just showed Indy grab on to the top of the sub, then it switched to the little animated sequence of the map for the red line as the sub traveled to the Agean sea. Then he hopped off and was still strong enough to fistfight Nazis.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
My UO is that I don't like movies based on comic books at all. The Avengers, Iron Man, X-Men, the multiple Spiderman, Batman, and Superman franchises--I have no desire to see them and only watched the ones that I did because my kids begged me to take them. And I was bored out of my mind, though Robert Downey Jr.'s good acting gave Iron Man 3 some funny moments. I did enjoy the original Superman franchise. To me, Christopher Reeve is the only Superman that matters.

 

Omigosh.  All day yesterday I was thinking this exact thing and wondering how to word it to not offend fans of these movies.  You said precisely what I was going through my mind. To me they are all exactly the same movie, the only difference being the costume of the hero.  I also agree about Christopher Reeve but only saw his movies because of a family connection.

Share this post


Link to post

My UO is that I don't like movies based on comic books at all.

I’ve watched some of the recent MCU movies and thought they were okay for the most part, but I’m definitely sick of all the hype over the MCU-verse. I was downright bored during a lot of The Winter Soldier and don’t get all the fuss over Sebastian Stan. To me he just seems like another basic white dude. There’s nothing that really sets him apart. Then again, I guess his character was a woobie, and people love woobies.

 

While I haven’t hated all of the comic book movies I’ve seen, I’m definitely ready for the comic book superhero film/TV bubble to burst. People have predicted that it’ll burst next year, but I’m not that confident.

Share this post


Link to post

I’ve watched some of the recent MCU movies and thought they were okay for the most part, but I’m definitely sick of all the hype over the MCU-verse. I was downright bored during a lot of The Winter Soldier and don’t get all the fuss over Sebastian Stan. To me he just seems like another basic white dude. There’s nothing that really sets him apart. Then again, I guess his character was a woobie, and people love woobies.

 

While I haven’t hated all of the comic book movies I’ve seen, I’m definitely ready for the comic book superhero film/TV bubble to burst. People have predicted that it’ll burst next year, but I’m not that confident.

 

I think comic book movies will be around for awhile. Overseas markets seem to love big action epics (the latest transformers which was a disappointment in North America made a shit ton of money in outside of North America (it is the biggest movie of all time in China)). The big action movies require big budgets and studios seem to not want to risk that kind of money on a movie unless it has a pre-existing fan base (like comic books, old TV shows, old movies books). There are decades worth of comics character and stories to mine, so I do not think it will slow down anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post

So I am curious, did you have the same problem with the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Because they basically did the same thing by saying that Thor and Loki weren't actually mythological gods, but actually extremely advanced nearly immortal aliens

 

It would bother me if they had already established Thor and co as actual mythological gods in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and then changed it. But instead, the whole of Thor's origin just feels to me like an adaptation to fit that universe. Just like Iron Man and Cap's origins were altered to fit the MCU. And, unlike the Indy aliens, I feel like changing Thor's origin to alien actually fit the Marvel universe much better than the gods origin did. In fact, I'll bet Stan Lee is kicking himself that he didn't think of doing it when he created the character. 

 

I see your point about that one. Although at the same time, in Raiders the hanging on the outside of the submarine for 2 days was neither a set piece or CG. They just showed Indy grab on to the top of the sub, then it switched to the little animated sequence of the map for the red line as the sub traveled to the Agean sea. Then he hopped off and was still strong enough to fistfight Nazis.

 

 

Hanging on the outside of the U-boat was daft, I agree. Because although U-boats did travel on the surface most of the time (they were actually faster than when submerged), Indy would have had to contend with watch officers on the deck, never mind the elements. But it's a cheap, thirty second shortcut, not a lengthy action sequence or even the premise for an entire movie.

 

While I haven’t hated all of the comic book movies I’ve seen, I’m definitely ready for the comic book superhero film/TV bubble to burst. People have predicted that it’ll burst next year, but I’m not that confident.

 

 

I don't know what they'd be basing that on. Marvel are going from strength to strength, and I don't see their well drying up any time soon. Sure, DC will probably kill their movie franchise again, with the help of Zack Snyder, and I feel like the Spider-Man franchise will have alienated a lot of people. But those are only small parts of what is really a Marvel dominated section of the industry.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's my unpopular opinion. While I love Monty Python and all that they do, Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't the be all and end all of their movies. If you ask me, Monty Python's Life of Brian is miles ahead of Holy Grail. It says something to me when someone as awesome as George Harrison loves your work so much that he will fund your unfundable movie and only ask for a little cameo in return.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Here's my unpopular opinion. While I love Monty Python and all that they do, Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't the be all and end all of their movies. If you ask me, Monty Python's Life of Brian is miles ahead of Holy Grail. It says something to me when someone as awesome as George Harrison loves your work so much that he will fund your unfundable movie and only ask for a little cameo in return.

True enough. But then, the poor thing also funded Shanghai Surprise.

Share this post


Link to post

I've tried to watch Blade Runner three times and can't make it past 15 minutes. I've tried the version with narration, and without narration, and it's still a dull, dreary, depressing mess.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have a problem with Jonah Hill.  Admittedly, I haven't seen a lot of his movies and my first experience watching him on screen was Money Ball, but, yeah, so far, no issues with him. 

Edited by Shannon L.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if it's an unpopular opinion or not, but congratulations to Brad and Angelina on their wedding.   I'm sure they didn't give a rat's ass about Jennifer Aniston's new movie coming out but she's been doing the talk circuit promoting it this week.  Now she's been upstaged with this news.  I don't feel sorry for her but this has got to bite.   

Share this post


Link to post

Lol. What's funny is all the headlines it will generate about her, I'm sure that's what she gets annoyed with most.

 

I don't care about their marriage. I think Angelina Jolie's a pretentious douchebag and a terrible actress. A friend forced me to watch Maleficent the other day, and my god what a terrible movie. I went back and looked at critics reviews for that and I think they went easy on it, if anything. Yikes.

Edited by ruby24
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand all the Angelina Jolie hype, and I truly don't understand how Jennifer Aniston became the villain for having the audacity to marry Brad first.

Back on topic: Other than the first "Meet the Parents," I don't find Ben Stiller all that funny. I could not make it through ten minutes of "Zoolander." And I kinda blame him for ushering in all the stupid guy movies.

Edited by Crs97
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Back on topic: Other than the first "Meet the Parents," I don't find Ben Stiller all that funny. I could not make it through ten minutes of "Zoolander." And I kinda blame him for ushering in all the stupid guy movies.

The only time I've found him funny was on "The Ben Stiller Show" and as the evil rest home owner in "Happy Gilmore". Because, dammit, I fucking love that movie. "Billy Madison" too. Early Adam Sandler was hilarious and surreal, and there was a very short window of about three years where I looked forward to Adam Sandler movies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size