Unpopular Opinions

[Kel Varnsen]

On 25/07/2016 at 8:16 PM, Ohwell said:

Exactly.  Where is the creativity?  Where are the new ideas?

The 1960 version of The Magnificent Seven was itself a remake of Seven Samurai, Hollywood has never been known for originality. On the other hand at least it is not Broadway in that regard.

[Bastet]

Remakes have been around since the dawn of film.  In discussing old films, it's not unusual to have to include something like "the 1932 version with A&B, not the 1936 version with C&D" as a lead-in.  And a large number of movies from the '30s (when film really took off) are adaptations of a short story or play.

[Ohwell]

Of course remakes have been around since forever.  Which is precisely why I lament the absence of creativity and new ideas.  

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 7/25/2016 at 8:43 PM, slf said:

Here's an unpopular opinion: I haven't watched a movie with a romance I cared about since the 90s. I wish Hollywood would put romance on the back burner and just concentrate on learning how to write women, all kinds of women, then giving me stuff like Crazy, Stupid, Love or Wedding Crashers or The Notebook. I hated The Notebook.

I'm unsure if this belongs here or in the Gender in Movies thread, but I'm so annoyed anymore when people say "No more romances!" as if falling in (or out of) love isn't part of the human existence. Do I think Hollywood always does it well? No. But just the idea of it seems to give folks hives, particularly as it relates to women, and I think its the execution that can be the problem, not the concept itself.

New UO - No movie is worth starting the equivalent of a nuclear war over.

I realize that we all like what we like, and that's great. And I'm guilty of taking movies way too seriously at times myself, especially the Marvel stuff. As a Hulk/Black Widow shipper and a non-fan of Hiddleston's Loki, I'm at odds with at least three people in my immediate social circle, but what's wrong with just letting people enjoy or not enjoy as they will?

[topanga]

On 7/25/2016 at 11:21 PM, ribboninthesky1 said:

Not sure how unpopular this is - but not really?  I don't think there's much new under the sun, though I realize there are stories that haven't been adapted for film.  But it's a business, and there's a formula that Hollywood sticks to, so we get what we're getting.  Production budgets are inflated, and more than ever, studios don't want to take a chance on much.  Even supposed disruptors like Netflix and Amazon, though more TV-focused, aren't doing much to change the status quo. 

I think that part of the issue is that movie studios are now owned by large corporations (Sony, Time Warner, Viacom, etc), and large corporations are in the business of making money, not necessarily making great movies. Or original movies. Or memorable movies. 

I takeno  credit for this theory.  I read in  a great book about '80s movies called Life Moves Pretty Fast: The Lessons We Learned From '80s Movies

[ribboninthesky1]

I can see that, topanga.  I also suspect that the money that, in the past, might have gone into more independent films are siphoned into these blockbusters (which aren't for the summer anymore). Some of these budgets are insane, and possibly under-estimated.  I mean, for some, if you don't crack a billion dollars in box office receipts, the film is a failure? Crazy.  

I'm far from a cinephile, but my intuition tells me that every decade since the rise of film has a dominant genre or theme from which several films are made.  For this one, it happens to be comics/superhero films. I'd add family-oriented animation. What will the 2020s bring us?        

Edited July 27, 2016 by ribboninthesky1

[Kel Varnsen]

6 hours ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

I can see that, topanga.  I also suspect that the money that, in the past, might have gone into more independent films are siphoned into these blockbusters (which aren't for the summer anymore). Some of these budgets are insane, and possibly under-estimated.  I mean, for some, if you don't crack a billion dollars in box office receipts, the film is a failure? Crazy.  

I'm far from a cinephile, but my intuition tells me that every decade since the rise of film has a dominant genre or theme from which several films are made.  For this one, it happens to be comics/superhero films. I'd add family-oriented animation. What will the 2020s bring us?        

The independent movies are still around. What is gone is the mid budget drama that costs around 50 million and is aimed only at adults (and the romcom). I have read that the rise in high quality tv shows is because the people who would be writing those dramas now have to go to tv to find work.

[slf]

10 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I'm unsure if this belongs here or in the Gender in Movies thread, but I'm so annoyed anymore when people say "No more romances!" as if falling in (or out of) love isn't part of the human existence. Do I think Hollywood always does it well? No. But just the idea of it seems to give folks hives, particularly as it relates to women, and I think its the execution that can be the problem, not the concept itself.

It is a part of the human existence but since most people in Hollywood struggle to comprehend what constitutes 'human' in the first place it is very much the execution and not the concept itself I object to.

[wallflower75]

21 hours ago, topanga said:

I think that part of the issue is that movie studios are now owned by large corporations (Sony, Time Warner, Viacom, etc), and large corporations are in the business of making money, not necessarily making great movies. Or original movies. Or memorable movies. 

I takeno  credit for this theory.  I read in  a great book about '80s movies called Life Moves Pretty Fast: The Lessons We Learned From '80s Movies

Ooh, that looks like an interesting book.  Must check it out sometime.  Sorry, off-topic.

 

11 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The independent movies are still around. What is gone is the mid budget drama that costs around 50 million and is aimed only at adults (and the romcom). I have read that the rise in high quality tv shows is because the people who would be writing those dramas now have to go to tv to find work.

At the same time, those writers aren't limited by time constraints--they can tell the story they want to tell however long it takes them, depending on the ratings.  I can see the appeal in that.

[ribboninthesky1]

16 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

The independent movies are still around. What is gone is the mid budget drama that costs around 50 million and is aimed only at adults (and the romcom). I have read that the rise in high quality tv shows is because the people who would be writing those dramas now have to go to tv to find work.

Oh, good point, though we still have the occasional Gone Girl/Girl on the Train that is presumably targeted to women. 

4 hours ago, wallflower75 said:

At the same time, those writers aren't limited by time constraints--they can tell the story they want to tell however long it takes them, depending on the ratings.  I can see the appeal in that.

True. I'm curious about TV vs film budgets.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

True. I'm curious about TV vs film budgets.

According to this article

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/budget-breakdowns-what-a-typical-827862

Cameron Diaz got more money than Jamie Foxx did for being in Annie, but although it grossed over a hundred million dollars it still lost money for Sony.

[supposebly]

This is so much fun! Here are mine. Some don't seem so unpopular here. Of course, all personal opinions, not facts.

Harrison Ford is neither good-looking nor talented. Stale, forgettable bread comes to mind when I see him, even way back in the seventies.

Bridesmaids was not funny. The Hangover was not funny, so why they thought doing this kind of humor with women would be funny escapes me.

The Devil wears Prada is highly overrated. When it came out, I thought "I've seen this movie before". When I finally saw it, I realized, it reminded me of Working Girls. Although, not entirely surprisingly, I had forgotten Harrison Ford was in that one too.

Stephen Spielberg is a hack. I've never seen any movie of his that I didn't find somewhat boring and predictable. They leave me with the impression of having eaten cotton candy. Nice for a second, utterly forgettable the next. Maybe with the exception of Schindler's List.

I liked Band of Brothers, though. Maybe because it was a series that actually gave time to flesh out the characters to more than just superficial cliches.

Tom Hanks has very little charisma on screen and his choice of movies/roles are a rather mixed bag.

I don't get the hoopla about Ryan Gosling nor Chris Pratt. They bore me. They are like the young Harrison Ford and Tom Hanks for me.

I liked Ben Affleck in the Superman v Batman movie. He was the only saving grace of that tedious thing.

I am proud to say that I've never seen Dirty Dancing in my life and have no interest.

Pierce Brosnan is my favorite Bond and Judy Dench is the only reason I kept watching in the Craig years. IMO, Brosnan had a perfect mix of silly, quippy with the occasional man pain. Judy Dench, well I don't think it's an unpopular opinion that she is pure awesome. I find Sean Connery's Bond sleazy and annoying, Roger Moore mildly amusing, and my second favorite is Timothy Dalton. Craig, meh.

I don't have a problem with JJ Abrams remaking two beloved SF franchises in a way he sees fit. But then, he created one of my all-time favorite shows, Alias and I have no nostalgic attachment to the original Star Trek/Wars movies/shows. However, I don't understand casting Chris Pine as Kirk. The man has no charisma and no chemistry with anyone.

Say what you will about Shatner but he had charisma and his chemistry with Nimoy was sizzling. I'm watching the original series on Netflix at the moment after I only saw a few episodes here and there when I was little, so I had forgotten pretty much everything. No wonder they were the original slash pairing on TV.

Can we stop casting the same actors in high-prestige franchises? Zoe Saldana (Guardians, Star Trek), Cumberbatch (Sherlock, Star Trek), Simon Pegg (Star Trek, Mission Impossible), Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes, Iron Man), Idris Elba (MCU, Star Trek) spring to mind. It's as if there are only 20 actors out there in Hollywood. Don't get me wrong, I like them, but they seem to pop up way too much.

Superman is a boring character and should be retired. Super-powered, super-nice, one-woman superman, super-hot, super-boring. I mean, where can we go from there? How often can we do the same origin story? Having said that, the recent atrocity had some interesting ideas whose potential was entirely wasted.

I hated Bill Murrey's character in Ghostbusters. He was a misogynistic prick who was a disgrace to the scientific community who used female students as test subjects to get in their pants. He deserved to be fired. Just ugh.

[festivus]

48 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Bridesmaids was not funny. The Hangover was not funny, so why they thought doing this kind of humor with women would be funny escapes me.

I hate Bridesmaids. I'll admit to laughing like an idiot at the naked guy jumping out of the trunk in The Hangover but otherwise, meh.

Pierce Brosnan is my favorite Bond too. 

Now I haven't seen Batman vs. Superman yet but I already admitted to liking Ben Affleck in another thread. I think I was the only person that when that casting was announced thought that it was a good idea. And now for the biggie: I loved Daredevil. It was beautifully shot and I thought Affleck was good in it. Oh and Micheal Keaton was the best Batman. I prefer his Batman movies to The Dark Knight.

Edited July 30, 2016 by festivus

[ribboninthesky1]

Someone else likes Timothy Dalton as Bond! *claps hands* He's my favorite. 

54 minutes ago, supposebly said:

I hated Bill Murrey's character in Ghostbusters. He was a misogynistic prick who was a disgrace to the scientific community who used female students as test subjects to get in their pants. He deserved to be fired. Just ugh.

Right there with you.  I never thought of Ghostbusters as classic cinema, but I wouldn't have missed the character at all if he never existed.  I thought Ramis, Aykroyd, Potts, and Moranis all managed to be funny without being assholes (also Peter MacNicol in the sequel). But Bill Murray bugs me in general. 

Related to DC films, I don't hate Zack Snyder.  I'm not a fan per se (don't care for his visual style), but he seems like one of the few male directors who perceives women as human rather than just eye candy.  I didn't hate Man of Steel or Batman vs Superman.  Finally, just based on the animated universe, I've never liked Wonder Woman, and the trailer for the live action film didn't rouse enthusiasm. I preferred the DCAU version of Hawk Girl by a country mile.        

[Wiendish Fitch]

I loathed Trainwreck; in fact, I thought it was one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. Way too long, preachy as hell, Amy Schumer (whose character, while unpleasant, wasn't that terrible a person) and Bill Hader (whose character was little better) have no chemistry, poor Brie Larson seemed to have wandered from another movie, the father was an unfunny bore whose inevitable death failed to move me (it didn't even impact the plot), unnecessary narration (either have it or don't, don't use it once or twice then forget about it), a stupid, contrived, "have our cake and eat it too" romantic comedy cliche of an ending that made me want to kick a hole in the wall, and the absolute worst part?

I laughed once. 2 fucking hours of my life that I will never get back, and I laughed once, at the line about the homeless person crapping on a rock. That's it. A 2 hour comedy with exactly one good joke? That should be a crime, and Amy Schumer should stick to sketch comedy, because she cannot carry a movie. I'm sorry, but she can't.

My idea of Trainwreck done right? 2011's Young Adult. It features Oscar-winning actress Charlize Theron (chew on that, Schumer) as an emotionally stunted alcoholic who can't form relationships, has clumsy chemistry with her leading men that's meant to be clumsy, there are emotional revelations that are actually meaningful and relevant to the plot, and the ending perfectly fits the character and the overall narrative. Best of all? It's only 93 minutes, the ideal length for a comedy.

 

P.S.

I'm no Billy Joel defender, but... fuck you, Trainwreck, "Uptown Girl" is not his worst song. His worst song? Really? Worse than "River of Dreams"? Worse than "Captain Jack"? Worse than "We Didn't Start the Fire"? Whatever.

=

[topanga]

On 7/29/2016 at 9:56 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

My idea of Trainwreck done right? 2011's Young Adult. It features Oscar-winning actress Charlize Theron (chew on that, Schumer) as an emotionally stunted alcoholic who can't form relationships, has clumsy chemistry with her leading men that's meant to be clumsy, there are emotional revelations that are actually meaningful and relevant to the plot, and the ending perfectly fits the character and the overall narrative. Best of all? It's only 93 minutes, the ideal length for a comedy.

 

P.S.

I'm no Billy Joel defender, but... fuck you, Trainwreck, "Uptown Girl" is not his worst song. His worst song? Really? Worse than "River of Dreams"? Worse than "Captain Jack"? Worse than "We Didn't Start the Fire"? Whatever.

=

I'll be sure to look for Young Adult. 

Oh, and you didn't like "We Didn't Start the Fire"? I loved dissecting the lyrics (thanks, Casey Kasem!) and getting a history lesson for my trouble. 

 

My UO: Some R-rated movies are okay for young teenagers to see--at least parts of the movie. "Straight Outta Compton" happened to be playing when I took my 12 and 14 year olds over to my mother's house tonight. And while the naked pool party scenes were indeed inappropriate (they never saw those), we were able to have a good discussion later about police relations in the community, Rodney King, the LA Riots, and how two gangsta rappers became multimillionaires by diversifying their brands.  Yes, the language in the movie was harsh, but my kids say they hear this type of language every day at school. BTW, one goes to a suburban middle school and the other goes to a magnet performing arts high school that's been rated as the 2nd best school in the state. So our kids hear profanity at school whether we like it or not. 

[Bruinsfan]

I've really liked some romances I've seen since the turn of the century—Amélie, Brokeback Mountain, The Jane Austen Book Club, and Brooklyn all leap immediately to mind—but they're all well-made dramas that feature a romantic relationship. It's been forever since I've seen an actual romantic comedy that left me with a good feeling afterwards. I feel like the genre has earned its fall into obscurity.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I"m not sure how unpopular this is, and it is a movie that is over 20 years old, but I just recently rewatched it On Demand, and it brought back feelings I had when I saw it the first few times when it came out. Yes, I saw it more than once because it was hilarious.  I'm speaking of The Brady Bunch. I get that it was a spoof; that the characters seemed to think they were still in the 70s, even though it was twenty odd years later! They got the part of Carol, Jan and Marcia down pat. Perfect. I love Gary Cole and never knew he could do comedy. He was also perfect as Mike. He got all of Mike's inflections, tone, speech patterns perfect. What I didn't care for (and this is where the unpopular comes in) is having Mike be utterly clueless and a buffoon, when it came to his job. Designing EVERY.SINGLE.PROJECT while trying to get the money to save the house as a replica of the Brady house? Or that Greg was also a clueless moron, when he was really Cool, by the time he got to high school, anyway. Bobby was a non-entity; Peter and Alice were okay.  Cindy was totally miscast and she wasn't Cindy to me at all.

I did LOVE all the cameos though. Especially Peter, Barry and Ann. Florence's cameo? well, she came off as a jerk, but oh well, it is all about Marcia!Marcia!Marcia! after all. AND DAVY JONES! And then The Monkees as judges!!!!!

It did make me wonder how Robert Reed would have felt about the movie, considering his bitterness over what the actual show turned out to be.  And yes, I grew up watching it in syndication, and have watched it a multitude of times and even got the entire series on DVD--the one with the shag cover!

I think I'll go sit in a corner right now, and cover my ears over all the "it's a spoof! That's why Mike and Greg were portrayed as IDIOTS!" I've heard over the years.

Edited August 1, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Shannon L.]

I love The Brady Bunch movie!  I was just watching it the other day.  I can even sing the two original Brady Bunch songs right along with them.  I was even thinking how much I'd love to show it to my kids, but they wouldn't get it. 

Davy Jones turning his happy song into a grunge song was about the best thing ever.  I think I even put it in the "Best Remakes" thread in the Music forums.  If I didn't, I should. 

Edited August 1, 2016 by Shannon L.

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

I love The Brady Bunch movie!  I was just watching it the other day.  I can even sing the two original Brady Bunch songs right along with them.  I was even thinking how much I'd love to show it to my kids, but they wouldn't get it. 

Same here! Though I did wish that they had also included the "Sha-na-na" song, so we could also hear Peter's "changing" voice. I LOVE that song!

[millennium]

On 7/29/2016 at 9:56 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

I loathed Trainwreck; in fact, I thought it was one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. Way too long, preachy as hell, Amy Schumer (whose character, while unpleasant, wasn't that terrible a person) and Bill Hader (whose character was little better) have no chemistry, poor Brie Larson seemed to have wandered from another movie, the father was an unfunny bore whose inevitable death failed to move me (it didn't even impact the plot), unnecessary narration (either have it or don't, don't use it once or twice then forget about it), a stupid, contrived, "have our cake and eat it too" romantic comedy cliche of an ending that made me want to kick a hole in the wall, and the absolute worst part?

I laughed once. 2 fucking hours of my life that I will never get back, and I laughed once, at the line about the homeless person crapping on a rock. That's it. A 2 hour comedy with exactly one good joke? That should be a crime, and Amy Schumer should stick to sketch comedy, because she cannot carry a movie. I'm sorry, but she can't.

My idea of Trainwreck done right? 2011's Young Adult. It features Oscar-winning actress Charlize Theron (chew on that, Schumer) as an emotionally stunted alcoholic who can't form relationships, has clumsy chemistry with her leading men that's meant to be clumsy, there are emotional revelations that are actually meaningful and relevant to the plot, and the ending perfectly fits the character and the overall narrative. Best of all? It's only 93 minutes, the ideal length for a comedy.

 

P.S.

I'm no Billy Joel defender, but... fuck you, Trainwreck, "Uptown Girl" is not his worst song. His worst song? Really? Worse than "River of Dreams"? Worse than "Captain Jack"? Worse than "We Didn't Start the Fire"? Whatever.

=

You forgot "Allentown."   "Allentown" always reminds me of a funny evening 30 years ago when I was listening to a local college radio station.   Two witty student DJ's barricaded themselves in the college radio station and played "Allentown" on a loop for four hours straight, turning deaf ears to all pleas for mercy and relief.   There was something sublimely hilarious about hearing that awful song finally end and then start right up again over and over.

But about Trainwreck.   I tuned in last week about twenty minutes after it had started without knowing the name of the film or who Amy Schumer is.    I had heard of Amy Schumer, never saw her in anything although for some reason I have been exposed to many articles and opinions about her.   The only person I recognized was Bill Hader.

What a terrible movie.  I read reviews of it afterward because I thought surely everyone must hate this film, but no!  Apparently it is a stroke of cinematic and comedic genius and I'm the asshole because I failed to perceive this.

Needless to say I will never watch an Amy Schumer film again.   I feel sad for the current generation because this is their idea of a talented comedic actor.

[Shannon L.]

3 minutes ago, millennium said:

But about Trainwreck.   I tuned in last week about twenty minutes after it had started without knowing the name of the film or who Amy Schumer is.    I had heard of Amy Schumer, never saw her in anything although for some reason I have been exposed to many articles and opinions about her.   The only person I recognized was Bill Hader.

What a terrible movie.  I read reviews of it afterward because I thought surely everyone must hate this film, but no!  Apparently it is a stroke of cinematic and comedic genius and I'm the asshole because I failed to perceive this.

Needless to say I will never watch an Amy Schumer film again.   I feel sad for the current generation because this is their idea of a talented comedic actor.

She's much better in small doses and the movie was in definite need of editing.  I didn't loathe it and thought some parts were funny, but didn't think it deserved the high praise, either.

[millennium]

2 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

She's much better in small doses and the movie was in definite need of editing.  I didn't loathe it and thought some parts were funny, but didn't think it deserved the high praise, either.

You know, my parents wouldn't have found Animal House very funny, but I still laugh at it to this day.

Successful comedy is probably 50% dependent on the writing and 50% on the target audience being tapped into the zeitgeist of the moment.   I wasn't born in 1990 so maybe I shouldn't have been watching Trainwreck in the first place. 

Edited August 2, 2016 by millennium

[Spartan Girl]

Here's my UO from the Captain America movies: I don't ship Steve/Bucky.

Moreover, I'm getting pretty sick of shipping in general.  You know, I think it's fine if you want to ship Steve/Bucky or whoever and use it to write fanfiction, but attacking other shippers or accusing the movies of (forgive the expression) "queerbaiting" just because their couples don't end up together in the movies is just taking things way too far.

[UYI]

On 8/1/2016 at 2:40 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I"m not sure how unpopular this is, and it is a movie that is over 20 years old, but I just recently rewatched it On Demand, and it brought back feelings I had when I saw it the first few times when it came out. Yes, I saw it more than once because it was hilarious.  I'm speaking of The Brady Bunch. I get that it was a spoof; that the characters seemed to think they were still in the 70s, even though it was twenty odd years later! They got the part of Carol, Jan and Marcia down pat. Perfect. I love Gary Cole and never knew he could do comedy. He was also perfect as Mike. He got all of Mike's inflections, tone, speech patterns perfect. What I didn't care for (and this is where the unpopular comes in) is having Mike be utterly clueless and a buffoon, when it came to his job. Designing EVERY.SINGLE.PROJECT while trying to get the money to save the house as a replica of the Brady house? Or that Greg was also a clueless moron, when he was really Cool, by the time he got to high school, anyway. Bobby was a non-entity; Peter and Alice were okay.  Cindy was totally miscast and she wasn't Cindy to me at all.

I did LOVE all the cameos though. Especially Peter, Barry and Ann. Florence's cameo? well, she came off as a jerk, but oh well, it is all about Marcia!Marcia!Marcia! after all. AND DAVY JONES! And then The Monkees as judges!!!!!

It did make me wonder how Robert Reed would have felt about the movie, considering his bitterness over what the actual show turned out to be.  And yes, I grew up watching it in syndication, and have watched it a multitude of times and even got the entire series on DVD--the one with the shag cover!

I think I'll go sit in a corner right now, and cover my ears over all the "it's a spoof! That's why Mike and Greg were portrayed as IDIOTS!" I've heard over the years.

 

For the record, Barry Williams agrees with you about Greg's portrayal in the movie as a dork.

I'll never forget in TV Land's Brady Bunch 35th Anniversary special in 2004, where the cast sat down for an interview, and the movies were brought up. Eve had never seen them, and Susan Olsen flat out tells her the second one sucks. LOL. 

21 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I love The Brady Bunch movie!  I was just watching it the other day.  I can even sing the two original Brady Bunch songs right along with them.  I was even thinking how much I'd love to show it to my kids, but they wouldn't get it. 

Davy Jones turning his happy song into a grunge song was about the best thing ever.  I think I even put it in the "Best Remakes" thread in the Music forums.  If I didn't, I should. 

Did they watch the Brady Bunch reruns growing up, like I did in the 90's/2000's? They just might get it. :)

21 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Same here! Though I did wish that they had also included the "Sha-na-na" song, so we could also hear Peter's "changing" voice. I LOVE that song!

That song's in the second movie, which...isn't as good. 

Confession: That song, "Time to Change", was originally recorded for one of their early 70's albums, without the cracking voice. That version is also on the Very Best of the Brady Bunch album, which I...um...own. 

Edited August 2, 2016 by UYI

[Shannon L.]

2 hours ago, UYI said:

Did they watch the Brady Bunch reruns growing up, like I did in the 90's/2000's? They just might get it. :)

No, they didn't.  They were born in '98 and '01 and I don't recall seeing Brady Bunch reruns when they were old enough to start watching it. 

[JustaPerson]

Quote

Here's my UO from the Captain America movies: I don't ship Steve/Bucky.

Is it popular to ship them romantically? I love their friendship and hope we see more of it, but I don't want them to hook up.

Edited August 2, 2016 by JustaPerson

[Jazzy24]

8 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Here's my UO from the Captain America movies: I don't ship Steve/Bucky.

Here's mine. I don't like Bucky. I don't care about him and I'm pissed that he's been shoved into my Avengers. 

Better yet I don't like any of Steve's friends. Sam, Sharon,Ant Man,  Bucky, even Wanda(which saddens me cause the Scarlet Witch is in my top 5 all time favorite comic book heroes/characters) can go away any time. 

I don't even want an Avengers movie because I can't stand some of them. The only ones I care about is Tony, Thor, Bruce, Fury, Spiderman, Black Panter, Dr. Strange, and Captain Marvel. 

I care about Steve, Natasha and Clint but they have all annoyed me in Civil War

I will be pissed if Bucky is shoved in the next two Avengers movie and Nick Fury isn't there. 

[Ronin Jackson]

I just saw Everybody Wants Some last night a movie I really expected to enjoy based on the almost universally positive reception and my affinity for many of Linklater's previous works including Dazed and Confused... and honestly I feel like I watched an alternate universe version of the film based on how much my take diverged from popular opinion. I just didn't care for it at all and was pretty much waiting for it to end by the 1/3 point. Enjoying the movie must be tied to how much someone personally connects to nostalgia for that kind of college lifestyle, which I don't. That didn't prevent me from enjoying Dazed and Confused because I still connected with the characters on an emotional level. For the most part I wouldn't want to hang around the characters from Everybody Wants Some, and the experience of watching the film is essentially like hanging out with them for a couple of long hours. Linklater's stories never have traditional story structures, which in the past I've found refreshing, but here it came to a head and had me wondering what the point was, other than reliving hanging out with a bunch of macho dude-bros. Which hey, if that's your thing to each his/her own, but I'd much rather hang out with the quirkier, alt-lifestyle misfits from Linklater's other work.

[Wiendish Fitch]

On 8/2/2016 at 9:21 PM, Jazzy24 said:

I will be pissed if Bucky is shoved in the next two Avengers movie and Nick Fury isn't there. 

Gah, I'm so sick of that whiny albatross Bucky I could scream. Honestly, I intensely disliked Avengers 2 and Captain America: Civil War, and I think it's best (for me, anyway) to view The Avengers as a stand-alone movie.

That said, though, I hold the UO that I actually don't mind the glut of superhero movies; in fact, I rather welcome them. Oh, sure, it's a more than fair and accurate argument that they're tentpole cash cows, but you know what? The world is spiraling down a seemingly endless tunnel of violence, misery, and just plain shit, and I for one like the idea of escapist fiction of people with extraordinary gifts who use said gifts to aid the world, not to spread agony and suffering (Zack Snyder, are you reading this?!?!?). I'm excited for Black Panther and Wonder Woman (I hope I don't regret saying this 2 years from now).

[millennium]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Gah, I'm so sick of that whiny albatross Bucky I could scream. Honestly, I intensely disliked Avengers 2 and Captain America: Civil War, and I think it's best (for me, anyway) to view The Avengers as a stand-alone movie.

That said, though, I hold the UO that I actually don't mind the glut of superhero movies; in fact, I rather welcome them. Oh, sure, it's a more than fair and accurate argument that they're tentpole cash cows, but you know what? The world is spiraling down a seemingly endless tunnel of violence, misery, and just plain shit, and I for one like the idea of escapist fiction of people with extraordinary gifts who use said gifts to aid the world, not to spread agony and suffering (Zack Snyder, are you reading this?!?!?). I'm excited for Black Panther and Wonder Woman (I hope I don't regret saying this 2 years from now).

Except, comic book and fantasy movies that are supposed to be fun and escapist are now arriving weighted down with all kinds of unpleasant controversy because movies are being turned into battlefields of the culture wars.  

IMO, the studios are fomenting it by releasing trailers a year in advance (and when exactly did trailers start being treated almost like movies themselves, with online reviews, reactions, etc?), flogging them at ComicCon like the next coming of Jesus Christ, building up directors until they seem larger than life with their own personalities and backstories (seriously, twenty years ago did anyone really give a flying fig who the director of a movie was?) and then, finally ... failing to deliver on the promise.   The super-hyped movie comes out and more often than not it's a turd.   Which leaves the average person disappointed and the fan-person in the unenviable position of having to rabidly defend the work because they just spent the last year basking in the hype and can't or don't want to admit they got conned.  Look at all the Batman vs. Superman angst.  The Deadpool smugness.  The Ghostbusters hostility and misogyny.   A writer of Batman: The Killing Joke publicly calling a critic a "pussy" at ComicCon.   And now the Suicide Squad bullshit (complete with director David Ayer caught shouting "Fuck Marvel!" at the Suicide Squad premiere).

How 'Suicide Squad' Showcases Nasty Side of Fandom in 2016

I was tickled to see Suicide Squad bomb with the critics because it represents everything I hate about how movies are made and marketed today (including the defecation deification of jerks like Leto).    But now that it has broken the opening weekend record, there's no real reason for studios to change the way they do things.   We should probably expect more of the same.

I grew up loving comic books, but I don't love any of these movies, or the over-the-top anticipation and bitterness that marks their coming.

Edited August 9, 2016 by millennium

[NutMeg]

I wish we had more feel good movies - without CGI, superheroes, reference to past movie - movies we get out of with a smile on our face and hopefully something to makes us think too. Movies that so far we only get - not often enough - from independent or foreign producers, because Hollywood has pretty much dropped the ball on creativity. The kind of movies that I want to go see, even if the timing and location are weird, but with a wide release, so everyone can have a chance of catching them.

Times are hard. The world has become a less safe place. Superheroes can feel all angsty, they're still more related to what we call the 1%, as they are always safe at the end of the day/movie. When they are confronted to shooters we know they are likely to survive. They don't question whether by traveling to x or y place, they might put theit life at risk. As much as the recent trend has favoured humanising them, I feel that's all wrong: we like them because they're not human, and when times are good on Earth we enjoy seeing them become "human" - frailties, failings, feelings, foibles - but when times are as inclement as they are now and when the potential of terror becomes a likely reality than a paranoid expectation, it's just tone deaf to highlight superheroes.

We know we could use them, but we know they're not real. Why would I want to watch cities being destroyed in imaginary battles when I can see the reality of real battles on populations daily on the news? Why would I watch glamourised violence when I'm afraid each day when I open my newspaper website that there might have been another attack in a place I recently visited and most likely have to travel to again in the near future? 

As this is the UO thread, I sincerely hope that my new found unease when traveling or being in crowded places in touristic areas is only my own neurosis. I had to fly via Istanbul less than a week after the attack at the airport. Someone in front of me was watching Batman vs. Superman, I couldn't sleep and my eyes kept drifting to that screen, and I kept thinking how disaster airplane movies were not shown in the air, and wondering what other kind of movies would be removed from the viewing list if random violence keeps recurring in the world.     

I realize my post is disconnected, because I'm trying to express something I hadn't realised I meant to until I started writing it, but maybe what I'm trying to say is that the big studios dropped the ball in terms of having their fingers on the viewers' pulse and are working more by following some kind of formula of what works, which is never a good idea in the creative sense, but is a disastrous one when the viewership wants something different - again, I'm not the viewership, and the fact that so few movies motivate me to go and see them is not relevant in any way of the general public, but yeah, UO.    

[kiddo82]

Serious question.  Do Rotten Tomatoes scores really make a huge impact?  I guess my UO is that I don't pay very much attention to aggregate reviews.  I think the word of mouth is a bigger deal for smaller films, films I might not have heard of, or films I otherwise might not be inclined to see.  However, does it move the needle significantly for the bigger budget popcorn movies or the ones with big names attached?  There are movies I will see no matter what and movies I will not see no matter what.  I suppose in the big picture it is important for box office retention or growth for the limited release films but, and strictly using myself as the sample size, it's not a huge factor.  

Edited August 15, 2016 by kiddo82

[JustaPerson]

I mean personally I like to pay attention to the RT score of a movie, especially if I'm on the fence about watching something I'll check to see what critics thought. If I'm watching it anyway, I'll lower my expectations a bit if it's rotten. If it's fresh, I can go in knowing that it has quality though I might not come out agreeing (although my opinions generally align with RT). I didn't find Batman v Superman an exciting prospect (I don't really like Batman much and MoS was only ok for me) before its release, but I was a bit on the fence about it and seeing the RT score confirmed that I wasn't going to watch it. 

Their TV scores I find myself disagreeing with a lot. Season 4 of Arrow a 96% while Daredevil season 2 a 76%? Hell no! Arrow is crap!

[proserpina65]

I hate Pretty Woman.  I found it neither charming nor funny.  And both characters were awful.

[wallflower75]

On 8/16/2016 at 3:23 PM, proserpina65 said:

I hate Pretty Woman.  I found it neither charming nor funny.  And both characters were awful.

I've been rewatching the movies I own over the past couple of years, and one thing has really stood out to me while doing so--how disillusioned I've become with romantic comedies.  Back in the day, I looooooved Pretty Woman.  I got done watching it this last time and thought, "Does anyone really think this romance is going to last?"

[ribboninthesky1]

Right there with you, wallflower75. To add, I've no interest in watching people fall in love, no matter the genre.  I much prefer existing couples who manage to still like each other, but they're rarely, if ever, the protagonists in a film. It's weird - I enjoy love, but not romance. I've been that way for several years now.    

Edited August 19, 2016 by ribboninthesky1

[JessePinkman]

On July 27, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

The independent movies are still around. What is gone is the mid budget drama that costs around 50 million and is aimed only at adults (and the romcom). I have read that the rise in high quality tv shows is because the people who would be writing those dramas now have to go to tv to find work.

TV right now is so good that I only want to spend $10-13 at the movies for a spectacle, why pay money for a small intimate drama when I can just watch a show I'm already paying for?

I'll save my movie time for the big superhero flicks, the Marvel ones anyway, and Pixar or Disney animated movies. Everything isn't worth the time or cost at this point.

[Shannon L.]

3 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

TV right now is so good that I only want to spend $10-13 at the movies for a spectacle, why pay money for a small intimate drama when I can just watch a show I'm already paying for?

I'll save my movie time for the big superhero flicks, the Marvel ones anyway, and Pixar or Disney animated movies. Everything isn't worth the time or cost at this point.

I agree, but since I still love movies and going to the theater, I seek out the rom-coms and dramas and try to get to them during a matinee so I can pay half the price for a ticket.  But, I have no problems spending full price for the big budget movies and those are usually the same ones you listed.  I heard more and more people saying that they are sick of the Marvel movies, but I'm still all in.  I love them. 

[tribeca]

There is so much nastiness in the world I wish there were more comedies and/or romantic comedies.    It would be nice to see people happy and in love.   Tired of shootings things blowing up and gross you out comedies. 

[millennium]

On 8/20/2016 at 9:26 AM, JessePinkman said:

TV right now is so good that I only want to spend $10-13 at the movies for a spectacle, why pay money for a small intimate drama when I can just watch a show I'm already paying for?

I'll save my movie time for the big superhero flicks, the Marvel ones anyway, and Pixar or Disney animated movies. Everything isn't worth the time or cost at this point.

You make a good point.   The studios' greed for ticket prices has created a "more bucks should equal more bang" mindset and consequently indie films, romantic films, artsy films, etc. don't measure up to that expectation.   Spend almost $20 plus concession to see "Florence Foster Jenkins?"  I don't think so.   The studios know it too, so they've cut back on those kind of films.   Which explains why all we're seeing anymore are comic book movies, space dramas and dystopian teen films -- all of which bring the spectacle.

I'm old enough to remember going to see first-run films for only $4.50, and neighborhood second-run theaters that had dollar night.   I saw many, many movies back then.   Today, I may go two or three times a year, if that.   I simply can't justify the expense, especially since a) most movies today are CGI-heavy pieces of shit, and b) I know how movie-going used to be.

[topanga]

On 8/11/2016 at 3:55 PM, NutMeg said:

I wish we had more feel good movies - without CGI, superheroes, reference to past movie - movies we get out of with a smile on our face and hopefully something to makes us think too. Movies that so far we only get - not often enough - from independent or foreign producers, because Hollywood has pretty much dropped the ball on creativity. The kind of movies that I want to go see, even if the timing and location are weird, but with a wide release, so everyone can have a chance of catching them.

Your post is timely because I just watched "The Intern" today. Granted, it was a somewhat-cliched drama/comedy, but I really enjoyed it. I thought Anne Hathaway and Robert DeNiro gave very nuanced performances, and I loved the scenes with just the two of them. And there were no explosions, no CGI, or superheroes, and there were some beautiful shots of New York--Brooklyn, specifically.  

Which leads me to my UO: I like Anne Hathaway. I know she's one of those "we don't like her anymore" actresses on the Internet, (or maybe that was last year),  but I find her to be talented and beautiful. And I've liked all of her movies. 

[kiddo82]

2 hours ago, topanga said:

Which leads me to my UO: I like Anne Hathaway. I know she's one of those "we don't like her anymore" actresses on the Internet, (or maybe that was last year),  but I find her to be talented and beautiful. And I've liked all of her movies. 

Pretty sure the Internet likes her now, or at least isn't as hard on her now as it was a few years ago.  Once the hot take becomes the luke warm take (in this case the not liking of Anne Hathaway) the thought pieces come out with the new hot take ("Why I Still Like Anne Hathaway.") and the pendulum swings in the other direction once again making the hot take just any old take.  

[NutMeg]

5 hours ago, millennium said:

You make a good point.   The studios' greed for ticket prices has created a "more bucks should equal more bang" mindset and consequently indie films, romantic films, artsy films, etc. don't measure up to that expectation.   Spend almost $20 plus concession to see "Florence Foster Jenkins?"  I don't think so.   The studios know it too, so they've cut back on those kind of films.   Which explains why all we're seeing anymore are comic book movies, space dramas and dystopian teen films -- all of which bring the spectacle.

I'm old enough to remember going to see first-run films for only $4.50, and neighborhood second-run theaters that had dollar night.   I saw many, many movies back then.   Today, I may go two or three times a year, if that.   I simply can't justify the expense, especially since a) most movies today are CGI-heavy pieces of shit, and b) I know how movie-going used to be.

I have a different opinion on what's worth my money: rather than the spectacle, I value the script, the depth of characters, the direction and nuance of actors, the overall enjoyment - which can come from a terribly depressing movie that will haunt me (in some cases for years, see Time of the Gypsies, seen 20+ years go and still haunting me to this day), or that I remember liking and would watch again several years after (Sunshine Cleaning is one, I thought of it yesterday while discussing another Amy Adams movie), or that you come out with smiling but with a residue of tears in your eyes, à la Billy Elliot, The Lady in the Van, more recently Sing Street, and many others - movies that touch deep emotions. It's not only foreign or independant movies, Toy Story 1, 2 and 3 ans Up are there too. My beef is that I often miss movies I would like to watch because where I live, if you blink, you miss them. Such was the case for The Second Best Marigold Hotel (I loved the first one), The Big Short (which I ended up watching on a long flight), or very recently Captain Fantastic.   

4 hours ago, topanga said:

Your post is timely because I just watched "The Intern" today. Granted, it was a somewhat-cliched drama/comedy, but I really enjoyed it. I thought Anne Hathaway and Robert DeNiro gave very nuanced performances, and I loved the scenes with just the two of them. And there were no explosions, no CGI, or superheroes, and there were some beautiful shots of New York--Brooklyn, specifically.  

Which leads me to my UO: I like Anne Hathaway. I know she's one of those "we don't like her anymore" actresses on the Internet, (or maybe that was last year),  but I find her to be talented and beautiful. And I've liked all of her movies. 

Agree on Anne Hathaway, I've liked most of her movies that I saw (exceptions are Bride Wars, but I get the appeal for her of starring in a comedy after Rachel Getting Married..., and Les Miz., but I'm never a fan of musicals, so there's that, and her performance I'm sure was impressive). For some reason, I feel like she's the spiritual younger sister of Winona Ryder, who despite fantastic choices in her early-ish career went out a favour due to outside-of-acting factors.

So, another UO of mine is that I couldn't care less about personal lives of actors, directors, etc. If they deliver quality, I'm in. I won't blacklist Woody Allen or Polanski because of their real world issues, I didn't sour on Christian Bale because of his antics (it was him, right? I'm not even sure which actor I thought talented had a time when "everyone" "hated" him) and I even think that, sometimes, real issues bring some weirdness that is useful in all art forms. Doesn't mean I do or would condone such issues in real life, but that I do establish a distinction between the artist and the art form. All the way back to Renaissance painters, some of whom were pretty shitty in real life, but if their output moves me, I won't deprive myself of looking at it, even though they were in some cases criminals. As I see it, at least they do some good with what they create, and if these productions move me, make me think, make me laugh... well, more power to them. Similarly with writers, if I had to stop reading all those that had less than stellar behaviour, I would have to seriously restrict my reading list. Also, I know an adorable person who's an artist, got two artworks, the person is awesome but the art, in my eyes, is weak, so not often displayed - rather, I put out pictures by an artist about whose real life I know nothing but whose art make me smile whenever I look at them because of how unexpected it is - and still is despite being seen daily.

Also: I get into movies without preconception regarding actors. I had never seen Kristen Steward in anything and knew of her reputation of being one-note but I found her excellent in Café Society. I love Meryl Streep in most movies I've seen her in, starting with Sophie's Choice (even though I initially found her miscast, ha!!!), skipped quite a lot of her movies that didn't interest me, some hugely popular (Out of Africa, the Bridges of Madison County, never saw them), disliked her tremendously in Julie & Julia, loved her in It's Complicated...: what I mean is that I don't have an a priori view on her acting, I know she's very good at her craft, but sometimes she's just not my cup of tea. And that's ok, and that doesn't neglect her talent. 

[millennium]

49 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

I have a different opinion on what's worth my money: rather than the spectacle, I value the script, the depth of characters, the direction and nuance of actors, the overall enjoyment - which can come from a terribly depressing movie that will haunt me (in some cases for years, see Time of the Gypsies, seen 20+ years go and still haunting me to this day), or that I remember liking and would watch again several years after (Sunshine Cleaning is one, I thought of it yesterday while discussing another Amy Adams movie), or that you come out with smiling but with a residue of tears in your eyes, à la Billy Elliot, The Lady in the Van, more recently Sing Street, and many others - movies that touch deep emotions. It's not only foreign or independant movies, Toy Story 1, 2 and 3 ans Up are there too. My beef is that I often miss movies I would like to watch because where I live, if you blink, you miss them. Such was the case for The Second Best Marigold Hotel (I loved the first one), The Big Short (which I ended up watching on a long flight), or very recently Captain Fantastic.   

I was into independent, dramatic and art films when it was economically feasible to go to the movies 1-3 times a week.   In my teen years and young adulthood I could often be found at the Avon Cinema near Brown University, and later, the Sono in South Norwalk, Connecticut.    But if I were a kid today interested in film, I simply couldn't afford to haunt the movie houses the way I once did (to be honest, I can't afford it as an adult).  I feel bad for the current generation.   It's being deprived in terms of variety and quality of movies, and made to pay through the nose for what pathetic selection there is.

You can still see "indie" movies on Netflix or other venues, but they all seem to suck.  It used to be you could go to the theater and see an offbeat film with serious actors (off the top of my head, "The Rapture," starring Mimi Rogers and David Duchovny) but now movies not produced by the big studios seem to be overrun with anonymous hams and hacks, people who'll never make the big leagues and seem to know it.    Nothing turns me off to a story faster than bad acting.

In my area too, the kind of films you mentioned come and go overnight.   They are pushed out by the comic book movies, etc.   For example, when Batman vs. Superman arrived, the local multiplex purged 6 theaters and devoted them to exclusive round-the-clock showings of BvS.   Any films formerly showing in those theaters were sent packing.   It happens every time a "big" movie comes around.  

Edited August 22, 2016 by millennium

[NutMeg]

19 minutes ago, millennium said:

I was into independent, dramatic and art films when it was economically feasible to go to the movies 1-3 times a week. 

I'm with you there, except that I fear I have amended my viewing habits to 1-3 times a YEAR - my teenage, twenty and thirty something selves would have been horrified that that was in their future!!! For me, I just cut down a lot of movie going when I moved to a city that had plenty of "alternative" (maybe that's what not-Hollywood is called?) movies and movie theaters to one that was showing mostly blockbusters. I think I cold went from 20+ movies a year to on average probably less than a year. 

Still, for people with no means living in a first world country priding itself of offering cultural venues, as I was for years, there are hopefully still wonderful State- (in Europe) or charity- (in the US) funded places where you can watch for a very small price (mostly, but not always) old movies for a ridiculously low price. Sure, the seating is not always comfy, and there's no popcorn, but that's how I caught up on before-my-time movies such as Hitchcock and al. developed a cinematographic culture. Please, tell me those still exist where you live!!  

[GreekGeek]

3 hours ago, NutMeg said:

Still, for people with no means living in a first world country priding itself of offering cultural venues, as I was for years, there are hopefully still wonderful State- (in Europe) or charity- (in the US) funded places where you can watch for a very small price (mostly, but not always) old movies for a ridiculously low price. Sure, the seating is not always comfy, and there's no popcorn, but that's how I caught up on before-my-time movies such as Hitchcock and al. developed a cinematographic culture. Please, tell me those still exist where you live!!  

The best bet around here for what you describe is the Museum of Modern Art. If you become a member and go to their movie screenings regularly, it's well worth it. 

[Kel Varnsen]

My unpopular opinion is that even at today's prices i think movies are a great deal. $14 for up to 3 hours of entertainment?  Where else can you go and get that. Even a meal at a decent sit down restaurant or pub is going to be more, and if you have a beer forget about it. I don't see as many movies as i used to now but that is more about finding the time.

[Shannon L.]

42 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

My unpopular opinion is that even at today's prices i think movies are a great deal. $14 for up to 3 hours of entertainment?  Where else can you go and get that. Even a meal at a decent sit down restaurant or pub is going to be more, and if you have a beer forget about it. I don't see as many movies as i used to now but that is more about finding the time.

That's a good point and will be ok with me once my kids are out on their own with jobs to buy their own tickets, but when it costs $60 just to walk through the door of the theater when we all want to see the same movie, it gets to be too much.  Yes, in comparison to other forms of entertainment (my blood is still boiling over the price of Hamilton next year--a musical that my daughter desperately wants to see, but we couldn't even afford at half price!  So much for exposing her to the arts), it's a great price, but we rarely go to those other pricey places  either because they're too expensive.  Thankfully, the kids are only really interested in the big blockbusters as listed above, so I can save money in anticipation of going.  My son also has a job now, so if he wants to pay full price for something that I can wait for on dvd, then he can do so. 

Nutmeg, we have a $2 theater down the road.  Smaller screens, older fixtures, no surround sound,  but still decent.  We saw Captain America there the other day (one that we did pay full price for when it came out, but I wanted to see it again on the big screen) and it wasn't bad at all.  The biggest problem with that theater is that during the summer, or school breaks, depending on the movie, the line is around the block and the theater sells out quickly. 

[UYI]

On 8/20/2016 at 8:26 AM, JessePinkman said:

TV right now is so good that I only want to spend $10-13 at the movies for a spectacle, why pay money for a small intimate drama when I can just watch a show I'm already paying for?

I'll save my movie time for the big superhero flicks, the Marvel ones anyway, and Pixar or Disney animated movies. Everything isn't worth the time or cost at this point.

I think there's room for both. I hate that superhero/action films seem to be all that comes out nowadays. I've always preferred realistic fiction--in both movies and books*--above all.

*Which is why I was drawn more to the Baby Sitters Club than Harry Potter as a kid (well, that, and the over the top publicity the latter got at its peak made me want to puke). Now, granted, having 11/13 year old girls go on huge road trips on their own isn't exactly realistic, but I can overlook that. ;)

15 hours ago, topanga said:

Your post is timely because I just watched "The Intern" today. Granted, it was a somewhat-cliched drama/comedy, but I really enjoyed it. I thought Anne Hathaway and Robert DeNiro gave very nuanced performances, and I loved the scenes with just the two of them. And there were no explosions, no CGI, or superheroes, and there were some beautiful shots of New York--Brooklyn, specifically.  

Which leads me to my UO: I like Anne Hathaway. I know she's one of those "we don't like her anymore" actresses on the Internet, (or maybe that was last year),  but I find her to be talented and beautiful. And I've liked all of her movies. 

Not to sound like a nerd, but the Hathahaters had their year in 2012, and especially 2013, when she won her Oscar. It's largely gone away since then.

And I like her, too. :)