Unpopular Opinions

[methodwriter85]

On 3/5/2018 at 9:27 AM, IWantCandy71 said:

I read Little Women when I was really young, and I didn't understand why Jo rejected Laurie. Yes, I do think as an adult, that they were too much alike and they both need someone the opposite of themselves for balance, in order to be their best. Jo and Laurie  would have been a very passionate romance that would have burned bright and likely ended in tragedy, but that's okay.

I thought it was made pretty clear that Jo never saw Laurie as anything but her brother. They really emphasize that in the 1994 movie, where Jo literally says that she doesn't even see Laurie as a boy- just Laurie.

I did think that the '94 version really made Jo/Bhaer work, because Gabriel Bryne was insanely attractive at the time and I bought why Winona's Jo was into him. He challenged her, and made her strive to be a better person. The kiss scene at the opera and the ending in the rain are some of my favorite most romantic movies.

[IWantCandy71]

I didn't think it was clear at all. In fact, in the 94 movie, isn't there a moment where Jo believes Laurie is crushing on Meg, and she's jealous ? Now in the book I don't remember so clearly.  But I do remember Laurie, in both the movie and the book, saying something along the lines that even if Beth had a suitor, he'd be jealous of him, too, because Laurie always knew he was destined to be a part of that family. I always felt Jo's rejection of Laurie was more because she didn't want to marry at ALL, not because of who HE was, but because she felt she wasn't meant to marry. That was LMA's original intention-to keep Jo single. So in short, I do think if LMA had intended all along for Jo to marry, in the end it would have been Laurie-but they might not have gotten there until they were much older and more settled. The Baehr/Jo thing was done to satisfy the publishers, who thought having Jo remain single was ridiculous. I actually hope the new version changes the story and has her remain the way the author intended, but HOLLYWOOD. I know they won't. And that's a shame.

[andromeda331]

43 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

The Baehr/Jo thing was done to satisfy the publishers, who thought having Jo remain single was ridiculous. I actually hope the new version changes the story and has her remain the way the author intended, but HOLLYWOOD. I know they won't. And that's a shame.

That might explain Baehr/Jo always felt tacked on to me.  No matter how many times I've read the story or watch the movies it always felt tacked on. Like in the final seasons of TV shows where love interests are suddenly added so the main character or secondary characters can marry. That Jo had to marry someone. He's just there. Someone not really fleshed out or do we see why he's interested in Jo or why she's interested in him. Single really seems like it would suit Jo.         

[farmerbud52]

I don't know how unpopular this will be but, after watching Star Wars VI,VII, Rouge One, Rebels, and the trailer for Solo I think Disney should focus on their EU elements over the main series.

[starri]

I always read Jo as a lesbian.  I would have sooner believed she would have ended up in a Boston Marriage, even a strictly platonic one, before she'd have ended up with Baehr.

[cpcathy]

What's a Boston Marriage?

[starri]

It's an old term that was used in New England in the late 19th and early 20th century to describe two unmarried women who lived together.  Some of the relationships were romantic, some weren't.  The term comes from a Henry James novel, the Bostonians, which had two female characters who were based, at least loosely, on his sister Alice and her companion Katherine Loring.  Jo is about the right age to be contemporary with a lot of the women involved in those relationships, and that's how she always came across to me.

Why, yes, I did take a Queer Studies class in college, why do you ask?

[BetterButter]

19 minutes ago, cpcathy said:

Boston Marriage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage

[andromeda331]

10 hours ago, starri said:

I always read Jo as a lesbian.  I would have sooner believed she would have ended up in a Boston Marriage, even a strictly platonic one, before she'd have ended up with Baehr.

That could have worked well too.

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 1/12/2018 at 9:17 AM, Zola said:

 i hate the term "girl" when talking about a woman in films and TV shows. 

I don't know whether its supposed to come off as a term of endearment, or something slightly more sexist, but it bugs me. 

I'm sorry, I had to comment:  Coworkers are using it to address my entire team at work ("Hey Girls", "Hi Girls",) in email and it bothers the hell out of me.  We're a team of women between age 27 and 40.  It is beyond rude in my opinion.  Would anyone address a similarly-aged group of men as "Boys" over email?  "Hey Boys, please do this---"

So yeah, I agree with you.  

Edited April 19, 2018 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 2/10/2018 at 8:37 PM, slf said:

I hate Legally Blonde. That she doesn't get in on merit, the bend-and-snap, the whole 'judging a ditzy rich girl, who skates through life on money and looks, to be just a dumb blonde is mean' thing, that it's considered an "empowering" movie for women. Her "arguments" relied on stereotypes and statements like "people who exercise are happy and happy people don't kill their husbands." Haaate.

 

It's a total rip off of Clueless, a far superior movie that did a lot worse at the box office, unfortunately, and I'm really bitter.  Legally Blonde made so much more money and got all those sequels.  And we all know what happened to Alicia Silverstone's career versus Oscar winner Reese Witherspoon.  (Clueless's profit was $45 million.  Legally Blonde's profit was $124 million.  My hands are actually shaking.)

Both movies have scenes where a man upsets the main female protagonist, then drives alongside her on the street asking her to  and "get back in the car" while the female protagonist remains upset.

Both movies show the protagonist wanting to prove she's more substantial than the ditzy, superficial fashion obsessed blonde the guy she's interested in thinks she is.

Cher - for Josh - wants to prove she's a good person who does charitable things for no benefit
Elle - for Warner - wants to become a law student to prove she's serious enough to be worthy of the man who dumped her

Clueless:  Cher uses "I Object" when her teacher says she's been late twice this semester.
At high school, Cher's walking on school grounds when a guy tries to put his arm around her.  She shoves off and says "Uh, as if!"
Legally Blonde:  Elle's Harvard video:  as she's walking on campus a Man whistles at her and she says "I object".

Clueless,  about the girl they're trying to make over:  "Not a total Betty, but a vast improvement"
Legally Blonde, about her ex's new girlfriend:  "She could use some mascara and some serious highlights but she's not completely unfortunate looking."

Clueless:  Josh wants to be a lawyer.  He is helping Cher's father with a law case.  When she tries to help them, Josh says she doesn't have to waste her time doing this when she could be shopping and having fun.  Cher is insulted by this.
LB:  Warner is in law school.  Elle joins him.  Warner tries to discourage her from attending law school because she's not smart enough to get through it.  

Clueless: Josh encourages Cher to use her popularity for good
LB:  Luke Wilson encourages Elle to use her blonde powers for good

I gathered my thoughts on this more than a decade ago so they might be messy , but yeah, the fact that LB got to do this and profit so handsomely off it bothers me.  I also gathered several pictures of similar styling, props, clothing, even the MOVIE POSTERS ARE SIMILAR.  (I checked, and yes the stylists are different people.)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Ms Blue Jay

[Zola]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I'm sorry, I had to comment:  Coworkers are using it to address my entire team at work ("Hey Girls", "Hi Girls",) in email and it bothers the hell out of me.  We're a team of women between age 27 and 40.  It is beyond rude in my opinion.  Would anyone address a similarly-aged group of men as "Boys" over email?  "Hey Boys, please do this---"

So yeah, I agree with you.  

I too had similar experience with my previous employer. Even the boss would call us "girls"

Trouble is when I complained he said "don't be so uptight, it's only a bit of friendly office banter"

But as you rightly point out, he would have taken a different attitude had I said to him "And how's my little boy this morning?"

[starri]

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Cher - for Josh - wants to prove she's a good person who does charitable things for no benefit
Elle - for Warner - wants to become a law student to prove she's serious enough to be worthy of the man who dumped her

I gotta disagree there.  Cher doesn't even realize she has feelings for Josh until about 2/3rd of the way into the movie.  Getting Warner back stops being Elle's motivation at about the halfway mark.

[Ms Blue Jay]

That point was not about romantic feelings at all.  It stands regardless of romantic feelings.  Josh and her snipe at each other because he thinks she's a "superficial space cadet".  So to impress Josh, she and Dionne "adopt" Tai and give her a makeover so that she'll become popular too.  (Cher: "Don't you want to use your popularity for a good cause?"  Dionne: "No.")  When Tai is over exercising, Cher shows her off to Josh and wants Josh to impress that she's being "charitable".  This is all way before she discovers her romantic feelings for Josh.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Ms Blue Jay

[Wiendish Fitch]

I have to say, that as much as I like Legally Blonde (though the criticisms are thoroughly valid and I really can't dispute them), I think its movie poster remains, more than 15 years later, one of the WORST Photoshop jobs ever. Reese Witherspoon had a lovely figure (still does) but, no. No. No, no, no, no, no, no, that is NOT her body. No way in Hades is that her body (not to mention her head looks GIGANTIC). 

That Photoshop butchering of Reese Witherspoon ties with poor Amanda Seyfried's goitered giraffe neck on the Mamma Mia! poster.

[HunterHunted]

7 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

It's a total rip off of Clueless, a far superior movie that did a lot worse at the box office, unfortunately, and I'm really bitter.  Legally Blonde made so much more money and got all those sequels. 

Perhaps your problem might be that Legally Blonde is a copy of a copy. Clueless is an adaptation of Jane Austen's Emma. If Legally Blonde is a copy of Clueless, then the themes of Emma are surely diluted by the time they are depicted in Legally Blonde. Though Legally Blonde is based on the novel of the same name written by Amanda Brown. I've never read the book to know how similar the film and book are.

https://www.sfgate.com/magazine/article/Blonde-Ambition-Author-Amanda-Brown-marvels-at-2565659.php

[Ms Blue Jay]

I know that Clueless is an adaptation of Emma.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Ms Blue Jay

[Bill1978]

I would rather watch Batman & Robin than any of The Dark Knight trilogy movies.

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Bill1978 said:

I would rather watch Batman & Robin than any of The Dark Knight trilogy movies.

That's fair enough. If you like your Batman on the light and fun rather than the dark and serious side, you could probably do worse. I only like TDK out of the trilogy anyway.

[Shannon L.]

On 3/26/2018 at 6:56 AM, Joe said:

I don't like Cumberbatch, so I skipped Dr Strange. I skipped Ragnarok too, and wish I'd skipped Ant-Man. While I felt that GOTG2 was lacking, it was better than some. My mildly controversial MCU opinion is that I really like Iron Man 3.

 

On 4/15/2018 at 11:11 AM, spaceytraci1208 said:

I do too! It still makes me chuckle when I think about The Mandarin's real name being "Trevor"

I already stated that I really liked a movie, but I'm going to add something else:  I really liked the kid and Tony's interactions with him.  In fact, I don't think the addition of a kid automatically makes it a bad movie.  I take each kid story line as it comes:  how's the writing for said character and how well does the kid actor do his/her role?  Some kids are written horribly, and some kids are bad actors.  But, others are written really well and the kids are fantastic.   I'm not going to groan and roll my eyes when I see a kid in the trailer. 

[Joe]

41 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

 

I already stated that I really liked a movie, but I'm going to add something else:  I really liked the kid and Tony's interactions with him.  In fact, I don't think the addition of a kid automatically makes it a bad movie.  I take each kid story line as it comes:  how's the writing for said character and how well does the kid actor do his/her role?  Some kids are written horribly, and some kids are bad actors.  But, others are written really well and the kids are fantastic.   I'm not going to groan and roll my eyes when I see a kid in the trailer. 

IIRC, the kid wasn't even in a whole lot of the movie. 10 - 20 minutes out of two hours or so. And yes, he was fine. Not exceptional, but not terrible either. That's all I ask from kids.

[Danny Franks]

15 hours ago, Joe said:

That's fair enough. If you like your Batman on the light and fun rather than the dark and serious side, you could probably do worse. I only like TDK out of the trilogy anyway.

I enjoyed Batman Begins, even if the villains were weak. I thought The Dark Knight was okay, but it lived and died on Heath Ledger's performance, and it was about half an hour too long. The Dark Knight Rises? That's (approximately) three hours of my life I want back. I thought it was terrible. Bale wasn't even trying, Tom Hardy was utterly terrible, Joseph Gordon Levitt was pointless. The only character I liked was Catwoman, but that was ruined when she fell in love with Bruce Wayne, for no identifiable reason.

For the whole trilogy, I thought Christian Bale was a terrible casting choice. He's too cold to be Bruce Wayne, and his idea of a 'tough guy' Batman voice was embarrassing.

[HunterHunted]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

I enjoyed Batman Begins, even if the villains were weak. I thought The Dark Knight was okay, but it lived and died on Heath Ledger's performance, and it was about half an hour too long. The Dark Knight Rises? That's (approximately) three hours of my life I want back. I thought it was terrible. Bale wasn't even trying, Tom Hardy was utterly terrible, Joseph Gordon Levitt was pointless. The only character I liked was Catwoman, but that was ruined when she fell in love with Bruce Wayne, for no identifiable reason.

For the whole trilogy, I thought Christian Bale was a terrible casting choice. He's too cold to be Bruce Wayne, and his idea of a 'tough guy' Batman voice was embarrassing.

My brother always has this to say to friends who think The Dark Knight is the ne plus ultra of comic book adaptations "What is the worst part of that movie?" And when people respond "Harvey Dent and his entire arc", my brother asks them if a perfect movie should have a major part that is just that bad. The movie has always felt like they pivoted late in post-production because Ledger died. Rises is a mess. Also as a Pittsburgher, they made an absolute mess of the city's geography in the final scenes with the bomb. Because of the rivers and hills (short mountains) there are not a ton of long straight roads on which to film car stunts. They drive back and forth on the same street like five times in that one scene.  I wish they had filmed that final scene in Youngstown or Cleveland.

[SherriAnt]

On 19/04/2018 at 6:50 AM, Ms Blue Jay said:

On 12/01/2018 at 7:17 AM, Zola said:

i hate the term "girl" when talking about a woman in films and TV shows. 

I don't know whether its supposed to come off as a term of endearment, or something slightly more sexist, but it bugs me. 

I'm sorry, I had to comment:  Coworkers are using it to address my entire team at work ("Hey Girls", "Hi Girls",) in email and it bothers the hell out of me.  We're a team of women between age 27 and 40.  It is beyond rude in my opinion.  Would anyone address a similarly-aged group of men as "Boys" over email?  "Hey Boys, please do this---"

I don't find it offensive when I'm called a girl unless it's in a derogatory or condescending tone. It must be very different here, we vary between calling groups of females girls or ladies, and groups of men are usually just called guys. In my circle we call call each other girls and boys, e.g. "the boys are going there and the girls are going here" type of thing, and we're all 40+.

Maybe in an official work email you need to be more formal, but if it's just a quick memo between team members I don't see a problem. 

[Shannon L.]

I've had a number of women tell me that they loved Magic Mike and couldn't believe I didn't see it.  Well, I just watched it and honestly, that's two hours of my life that I won't get back.  The acting sucked, the kid Adam and his sister were awful, and the dialog was atrocious.  Some of the dance numbers were cool, but I'd have saved time and been more satisfied watching a few of the good clips on You Tube and spending a half hour looking at their pictures on Google Images (because, yes, it provided some damn fine eye candy, but even that couldn't save it, imo).  However, Channing Tatum's dancing is impressive and it's always a kick watching Matthew McConaughey go all in when he's having a blast with a character.  But, still, it didn't make it worth watching the whole 2 hours. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Magic Mike XXL is an amazing movie, I think.  Magic Mike is just OK.

Calling adult women "girls" is inaccurate.  It's rude because these same people do not address an all male team as boys.  I don't know what you mean by "memos" -- the only way we communicate in my office is email, phone, or in person, so yes, anytime I'm addressed at work as Girl it is not acceptable to me.  To be honest, I don't like Ladies, either.

Instead of emails where people say "Girls ---"  or "Ladies, would you -------"  I would vastly prefer people to start emails, "Team ---"  or "Support Team" or "IT Team" or whatever accurate title for my team exists.  

Edited April 22, 2018 by Ms Blue Jay

[Bastet]

21 hours ago, SherriAnt said:

It must be very different here, we vary between calling groups of females girls or ladies, and groups of men are usually just called guys.

But not boys, right?  And that doesn't tell you something about referring to adult women as girls?

Edited April 22, 2018 by Bastet

[SherriAnt]

16 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Calling adult women "girls" is inaccurate.  It's rude because these same people do not address an all male team as boys.  I don't know what you mean by "memos" -- the only way we communicate in my office is email, phone, or in person, so yes, anytime I'm addressed at work as Girl it is not acceptable to me.  To be honest, I don't like Ladies, either.

Instead of emails where people say "Girls ---"  or "Ladies, would you -------"  I would vastly prefer people to start emails, "Team ---"  or "Support Team" or "IT Team" or whatever accurate title for my team exists.  

And that's exactly how you should be addressed, if that's your preference. 

[IWantCandy71]

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:24 AM, andromeda331 said:

That might explain Baehr/Jo always felt tacked on to me.  No matter how many times I've read the story or watch the movies it always felt tacked on. Like in the final seasons of TV shows where love interests are suddenly added so the main character or secondary characters can marry. That Jo had to marry someone. He's just there. Someone not really fleshed out or do we see why he's interested in Jo or why she's interested in him. Single really seems like it would suit Jo.         

Exactly. I never felt chemistry in the movie with GB and WR(but I didn't get a lot of it from WR and CB either). I never understood WHY Jo would give the professor a second glance as anything more than a mentor or friend. I don't know myself how I feel about single Jo-but I do think the author should have stuck to her guns. Not every person-male or female-is their best "them" when married.

[IWantCandy71]

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 3:12 PM, Danny Franks said:

but it lived and died on Heath Ledger's performance

UGH. HL's performance in that movie to me, is one of the most overrated EVER. And another UO but if he didn't have the tragic death-he never would have been nominated for ANY award. It was a pity nomination and it was kind of insulting IMO.

Much, much better, not so OTT performances go unrewarded every day. Dennis Quaid in "I Can Only Imagine". THAT is a tour de force performance, because it's SIMPLE and human. But because Hollywood has to be PC about everything, he likely won't get even a whisper of a mention for a GG or from the Academy. A performance in an indie CHRISTIAN movie, at the Academy awards ? Will Smith has a better chance.

 Perhaps the SAG awards ? Either way, he deserves something. But then, I think Hollywood doesn't like DQ, so who knows.

[andromeda331]

41 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Exactly. I never felt chemistry in the movie with GB and WR(but I didn't get a lot of it from WR and CB either). I never understood WHY Jo would give the professor a second glance as anything more than a mentor or friend. I don't know myself how I feel about single Jo-but I do think the author should have stuck to her guns. Not every person-male or female-is their best "them" when married.

I never did either. It also bugged me when he criticized her work. Yes, he's entitled to his opinion. But I thought her stories sound like they would be fun to read. She also points out that those are stories that pay. She's not exactly in the position where she can write and not need to support herself or send money home to her family. But for the most part he just seemed boring. I can't see Jo being married to someone boring. Maybe if she had more time to develop him. But Jo seems like she'd want someone who was a little more fun.    

[HunterHunted]

4 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Much, much better, not so OTT performances go unrewarded every day. Dennis Quaid in "I Can Only Imagine". THAT is a tour de force performance, because it's SIMPLE and human. But because Hollywood has to be PC about everything, he likely won't get even a whisper of a mention for a GG or from the Academy. A performance in an indie CHRISTIAN movie, at the Academy awards ?

The biggest impediment to the film getting any awards recognition is whether the producers have sought and if they've devoted any money towards awards recognition. If "I Can Only Imagine" never bothered to have critics screenings, then it's doubtful if it will get a review and this is true of much more mainstream movies. Movies that are considered critic-proof don't have special screenings because they know the audience will see it regardless. If the producers don't set up fancy voter screenings, luncheons, gifting suites, billboards, and 2 page "for your consideration" spreads then a film won't likely be nominated anything. This has less to do with Hollywood being too "PC" and more with how the awards machine works.

And frankly a Christian movie is a critic-proof movie. Would most of the people who are inclined to see a Christian movie care if the Hollywood critics and system think this Christian movie is good? In some segments of the viewing population, a nomination for an academy award or golden globe is a sign that the movie is either bad or adulterated in its morality. So the fact that "I Can Only Imagine" doesn't or won't get nominated isn't because Hollywood is too PC; it's a sign that the "I Can Only Imagine" producers don't want to and don't need to play the game.

Do you know the real reason Crash won the Oscar for best picture? It's not because it was thought to be the best film. It had mixed reviews. It's not because Hollywood is so PC. If #MeToo has taught people anything, it's that Hollywood is filled with as many jaded abusive bigots as anywhere else. It's not even that Crash spent a ton of money on an elaborate awards campaign. They basically had no money for awards campaigning, but they did have just enough money to send a DVD of the film to every voting member of the academy.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/12/crash-oscar-best-picture-oral-history-c-v-r.html

[Irlandesa]

5 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Do you know the real reason Crash won the Oscar for best picture? It's not because it was thought to be the best film. It had mixed reviews. It's not because Hollywood is so PC.

Nope.  In fact, homophobia played no small part in hampering Brokeback Mountain which many expected to win. 

And you also have to be the right genre.  Comedies, romcoms, superhero/comic book movies--all of them also face an uphill battle getting recognized for awards.  I think the only reason cartoons do so well is because there's a dedicated animated category.

[starri]

8 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Nope.  In fact, homophobia played no small part in hampering Brokeback Mountain which many expected to win. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[proserpina65]

11 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Nope.  In fact, homophobia played no small part in hampering Brokeback Mountain which many expected to win. 

And you also have to be the right genre.  Comedies, romcoms, superhero/comic book movies--all of them also face an uphill battle getting recognized for awards.  I think the only reason cartoons do so well is because there's a dedicated animated category.

Homophobia certainly played a large part in Brokeback Mountain not winning.  But there were other movies nominated besides Crash.  What lifted it about Munich or Good Night, and Good Luck?  (I'm assuming Capote may have had a similar homophobia issue.)

Edited April 24, 2018 by proserpina65

[Wildcard]

Quote

Homophobia certainly played a large part in Brokeback Mountain not winning.  But there were other movies nominated besides Crash.  What lifted it about Munich or Good Night, and Good Luck?  (I'm assuming Capote may have had a similar homophobia issue.)

One thought was that Crash had such a large group of actors and producers that a good portion of the voters knew someone who was associated with the movie.

[IWantCandy71]

22 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I never did either. It also bugged me when he criticized her work. Yes, he's entitled to his opinion. But I thought her stories sound like they would be fun to read. She also points out that those are stories that pay. She's not exactly in the position where she can write and not need to support herself or send money home to her family. But for the most part he just seemed boring. I can't see Jo being married to someone boring. Maybe if she had more time to develop him. But Jo seems like she'd want someone who was a little more fun.    

That is it, he was boring. Boring is why Jo disliked John at first. Jo would never give a boring guy a second glance. 

[IWantCandy71]

19 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

And frankly a Christian movie is a critic-proof movie. Would most of the people who are inclined to see a Christian movie care if the Hollywood critics and system think this Christian movie is good? In some segments of the viewing population, a nomination for an academy award or golden globe is a sign that the movie is either bad or adulterated in its morality. So the fact that "I Can Only Imagine" doesn't or won't get nominated isn't because Hollywood is too PC; it's a sign that the "I Can Only Imagine" producers don't want to and don't need to play the game.

Good for the producers then, and yes you have a point. There is a reason why Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Leonardo DiCaprio and George Clooney almost always get nominated for their stuff, and many times, they win. THEY play the game, because they think it matters. I used to call Clooney and DiCaprio Hollywood "butt kissers" and it's not untirely unfair. I think I'd add Ben Affleck to that group now. And it's kind of sad-that they place so much emphasis on a statue that will most likely end up collecting dust in the garage. I just think DQ deserves recognition, and it's sad he won't get it. But I don't disagree at all with what you are saying-you are in fact pretty much on the money. IDK about it being completely critic proof, but otherwise I agree with most of what you are saying.

Edited April 24, 2018 by IWantCandy71

[HunterHunted]

Dennis Quaid got great reviews and nominations for The Big Easy and Far From Heaven. I think when actors take roles in these Christian films they are fully cognizant that they likely won't get any awards recognition. I've got to think everyone who took a role in Heaven is for Real and Miracles from Heaven knew that.

Part of the reason actors and films chase awards is that it can be financially profitable to do so. Oscar nominees can see their box office returns increase by as little as 20% and as much as 200% just because of a nomination. Winning an Oscar often allows actors to radically increase their salary demands. Awards matter in the way that almost everything in the world matters--money.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-much-economic-value-do-you-gain-from-winning-an-oscar-2018-03-02

[proserpina65]

1 hour ago, HunterHunted said:

Part of the reason actors and films chase awards is that it can be financially profitable to do so. Oscar nominees can see their box office returns increase by as little as 20% and as much as 200% just because of a nomination. Winning an Oscar often allows actors to radically increase their salary demands. Awards matter in the way that almost everything in the world matters--money.

It also gives them the leverage and power to get projects made, which to many actors and producers is more important than the money itself.

[raezen]

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

It also gives them the leverage and power to get projects made, which to many actors and producers is more important than the money itself.

Money and power. Everything that makes the world go 'round.

[Dandesun]

On 4/20/2018 at 1:12 PM, Danny Franks said:

I enjoyed Batman Begins, even if the villains were weak. I thought The Dark Knight was okay, but it lived and died on Heath Ledger's performance, and it was about half an hour too long. The Dark Knight Rises? That's (approximately) three hours of my life I want back. I thought it was terrible. Bale wasn't even trying, Tom Hardy was utterly terrible, Joseph Gordon Levitt was pointless. The only character I liked was Catwoman, but that was ruined when she fell in love with Bruce Wayne, for no identifiable reason.

For the whole trilogy, I thought Christian Bale was a terrible casting choice. He's too cold to be Bruce Wayne, and his idea of a 'tough guy' Batman voice was embarrassing.

I, too, enjoyed Batman Begins. I like a really well done origin story and I really liked how they showed the various Bat-utensils coming to be.

The Dark Knight was a hell of a movie... that I have never felt compelled to rewatch. If I see it on a channel I think to myself that it was a really good movie that I enjoyed watching but ultimately decide 'eeehhh... maybe something else is on.'

And the Dark Knight Rises is probably only worth anything to me for the breaking of Bats' back because I remember that coming out in the comics and what a huge. fucking. deal. that was. But I have no interest in the rest of it. Also, Tom Hardy was unintelligible and I found that really frustrating in the theater.

[PepSinger]

I loved Batman Begins as well. I honestly don’t think it gets the credit it deserves. It is a great origin story, and the only one to meet it IMO is Wonder Woman. UO: Katie made a much better Rachel than Maggie.

I always like to watch incredibly hyped movies years and years later to see if it truly holds up. For me, I watched The Dark Knight in the fall on HBO, and I still think it is one of the best films I’ve seen. I also think age helped because I was 17 when I first saw it, and I think I didn’t fully appreciate Harvey Dent’s character and his impact on the story. Now, I do.

The Dark Knight Rises, on the other hand, I haven’t seen since it was in theatres. However, my ex and I would constantly make fun of Bane’s voice and use his dialogue (“Do you feel in charge?”). I’d be curious to watch it again to see if I feel the same way now as I did then.

Edited April 25, 2018 by PepSinger

[Chas411]

2 hours ago, PepSinger said:

e only one to meet it IMO is Wonder Woman. UO: Katie made a much better Rachel than Maggie.

Agreed about Katie being the better Rachel. I didn't warm to Maggie at all in that role.

 

I liked the dark knight rises for how it wrapped up the franchise and cat woman but as said Bane was the worst villain ever. He was unintelligible and while he at least had a terrifying presence that was also ruined at the Cotillard reveal when he became a whimpering mess. 

Speaking of the Cotillard reveal - was that the most obvious twist ever? I knew she was going to be Talia from the minute she arrived. No way Marion Cotillard was just going to be a nobody role.

[GHScorpiosRule]

6 hours ago, Chas411 said:

Agreed about Katie being the better Rachel. I didn't warm to Maggie at all in that role.

Maggie played her as a totally different character. She might as well have been a different character. There was nothing in her performance that told me she had any tender feelings for Bruce. Quite the opposite--she treated him with contempt and as if he were shit she just scraped off her shoe. I CHEERED when she died. That's not to say I liked Katie's performance. I just didn't like the character. And I've more than vented my spleen as to why in the Batman movies thread, so I won't repeat myself.

And I know this is unpopular, but I think Bale is the BEST live action Bruce AND Bats. They shoulda just replaced Kevin!FUCKING!Conroy's! Batman voice whenever Bale was Bats, and that would have taken care of the voice problem. Of course his Batman voice in Begins wasn't bad.

One of my favorite lines from Begins: "Yeah, well, a guy who dresses up like a bat, CLEARLY has issues."

[Danny Franks]

2 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Maggie played her as a totally different character. She might as well have been a different character. There was nothing in her performance that told me she had any tender feelings for Bruce. Quite the opposite--she treated him with contempt and as if he were shit she just scraped off her shoe. I CHEERED when she died. That's not to say I liked Katie's performance. I just didn't like the character. And I've more than vented my spleen as to why in the Batman movies thread, so I won't repeat myself.

I thought Katie Holmes was fine in the role. She's never going to win acting awards, but she worked as Rachel, and convinced as a woman who once loved a guy she now thinks is a complete asshole. And more, she convinced as a woman who this Bruce Wayne would have lingering feelings for as well.

With all the best will in the world, I just couldn't buy Maggie Gyllenhaal as a woman torn between two handsome, successful men who are crazy about her. She was too cold (which, funnily enough, matched Bale's coldness) and as you point out, it seems like she didn't get the message that Rachel was supposed to love Bruce.

[andromeda331]

Batman Begins and Dark Knight are the only Batman movies I ever really liked. I've never liked any of the others.   

[festivus]

My UO is I'm just meh about the Dark Knight movies. I enjoyed the first two when I watched them but I don't care if I ever see them again. OTOH I've watched Batman and Batman Returns more times than I can count.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, festivus said:

My UO is I'm just meh about the Dark Knight movies. I enjoyed the first two when I watched them but I don't care if I ever see them again. OTOH I've watched Batman and Batman Returns more times than I can count.

I admit, now I have to be in the mood for the Nolan movies. Same for the Burton ones. But Batman: The Animated Series? Justice League? And all the straight to home Batman and Justice League Movies? Can watch over and over and over and over again in an unending loop. Bruce Timm, Radomsky, Burnett, Dini OWN the AWESOMENESS of the DCAU, which is FAR SUPERIOR to the DCEU.

I'm also not a fan of villains getting their own stand alone movies, like Black Adam and Venom. They're villains! Bad Guys! They should be antagonists in the heroes' movies, dammit.

[HunterHunted]

7 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

With all the best will in the world, I just couldn't buy Maggie Gyllenhaal as a woman torn between two handsome, successful men who are crazy about her. She was too cold (which, funnily enough, matched Bale's coldness) and as you point out, it seems like she didn't get the message that Rachel was supposed to love Bruce.

I did not get conflicted at all. It always felt like Rachel had already made up her mind and chosen Harvey. There was something about Rachel and Bruce's interactions in this movie that made it seem like Rachel felt a little guilty, burdened, apologetic because Bruce was still in her life like a real life shitty spring break tattoo. Well...I was 18...and drunk...and in Cancun.