Unpopular Opinions

[scarynikki12]

On 4/25/2018 at 3:45 PM, HunterHunted said:

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.

I agree and I think it was on purpose since she’s completely into Harvey all movie and accepts his proposal seconds before getting blown up. Bruce was willfully blind where she was concerned but I don’t think we were supposed to be. 

As far as one vs the other, I think Katie and Maggie both worked for their respective movies. Katie sold the eager newbie lawyer who may be Bruce’s endgame while Maggie sold the old friend who is so not into him but isn’t sure how to tell him. The character of Rachel sucked ass (my UO is that I’d rather not have a love interest at all until time for Selina), but both women did a solid job. 

My big Batman UOs are that Dark Knight Rises isn’t as bad as people say (don’t get me wrong I have PLENTY of notes because it did have issues), Batman Returns sucks way more (and I that was NOT Selina Kyle or Catwoman), Batman Forever is really fun if you embrace the silly, and Nicholson’s Joker is overrated (though I like his devotion to Prince). 

Batman and Robin sucks no matter how you look at it though. 

[WritinMan]

Doctor Strange and Spider-Man: Homecoming were OK at best. I haven't really disliked any Marvel movie, but these are definitely way down on the MCU list.

Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies are much better.

[WritinMan]

And my #1 superhero movie is Watchmen: Director's Cut.

Yeah, that's right. Watchmen.

[millennium]

On 4/25/2018 at 9:48 AM, andromeda331 said:

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

Batman starring Adam West is the only Batman movie I ever liked.   It's the only one with any heart or humor.   Who doesn't feel Batman's pain when he realizes Catwoman is Miss Kitka, as his eyes cloud over and he hears an echo of the Russian song from the restaurant?   Then he tells Robin to snap the cuffs on her, that's it just another incident in the life of every crimefighter.   The genius of Caesar Romero, Burgess Meredith and Frank Gorshin were also on full display.   You can tell they were having a blast.  

I would love to see a good, serious Batman movie, preferably featuring the early to mid-1970s Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams Batman, the clear-headed, firmly grounded Batman who was equal parts master detective, acrobat, mixed martial arts expert and all-around humanitarian.    Ideally starring an unknown who can grow into the role, much like Christopher Reeve did with Superman.

I have been disappointed by every Batman movie since the godawful Tim Burton mess of the 1990s (the Batplane pausing to silhouette against the moon says it all, IMO).    And I hate the rubber/armored suits.

ETA: The animated movies have actually been better than any of the Burton/Nolan incarnations, especially the Batman Beyond movie in which the Joker returns.  

Edited April 28, 2018 by millennium

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, millennium said:

Batman starring Adam West is the only Batman movie I ever liked.   It's the only one with any heart or humor.   Who doesn't feel Batman's pain when he realizes Catwoman is Miss Kitka, as his eyes cloud over and he hears an echo of the Russian song from the restaurant?   Then he tells Robin to snap the cuffs on her, that's it just another incident in the life of every crimefighter.   The genius of Caesar Romero, Burgess Meredith and Frank Gorshin were also on full display.   You can tell they were having a blast.  

I would love to see a good, serious Batman movie, preferably featuring the early to mid-1970s Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams Batman, the clear-headed, firmly grounded Batman who was equal parts master detective, acrobat, mixed martial arts expert and all-around humanitarian.    Ideally starring an unknown who can grow into the role, much like Christopher Reeve did with Superman.

I have been disappointed by every Batman movie since the godawful Tim Burton mess of the 1990s (the Batplane pausing to silhouette against the moon says it all, IMO).    And I hate the rubber/armored suits.

ETA: The animated movies have actually been better than any of the Burton/Nolan incarnations, especially the Batman Beyond movie in which the Joker returns.  

It really would be nice to see a good, serious Batman. The Tim Burton ones were just awful. In Batman Begins I felt for he lost his parents, what he was like when he grew up before leaving town really seemed like that's how a kid might turn out after witnessing his parents deaths. His anger made sense the following part with him and the League of Shadows I could see why that would appeal to him and then when he realized he couldn't just murder a man. I really liked watching the beginning of his Batman and figuring out how to do things.  

[Wiendish Fitch]

What I want is a good, serious Batman... who also gives a crap about other people, has basic social skills (he used to, anyway), isn't constantly wallowing in self-pity over his damn dead parents, treats others with the barest minimum of respect, and isn't a hypocritical, paranoid, xenophobic attempted murderer.

Criminy, the 2 Batmans who fulfill this criteria are Kevin Conroy's animated Batman... and friggin' Adam West! 

[Crs97]

I thought Michael Keaton was a good Batman in a bad movie (because they let Jack Nicholson chew up the scenery and Kim Basinger was annoying as all get out).  I never saw his sequel, but I wonder how the franchise would have changed if they hadn’t made those movies so cartoonish.

[IWantCandy71]

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 12:26 PM, HunterHunted said:

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

I wish being in a good project mattered more than money, but I cannot argue that money makes the world go round.

 

My other UO is that I truly, truly dislike most of the Marvel movies. I don't understand the hype and never will. I especially don't understand why anyone would EVER call ANY of them "masterpieces", but I guess that different opinions is what it's all about. I don't HAVE to understand it-and that's probably a good thing. It isn't just that I hate movies that are all about hype and special effects. It's that I hate most of the characters in those movies. I find them to be unbearably smug and self righteous. I find myself rooting-seriously ROOTING-for the villains in the few of them that I have forced myself to sit through the entirety of the movie.

Several of them I have literally turned off after thirty minutes from sheer boredom. So nope. Don't get it, never will. I do LOVE the Incredible Hulk and Banner, he is my one true favorite "superhero" character. And I like Mark Ruffalo-I just think he's miscast. And I do like Tom Hiddleston and I love the idea of who Loki is, and his journey, and I love that he had a somewhat redemptive arc. But since I know what I know about the new movie, I won't bother watching it at all, because since I know what happens, I don't need to. The only two characters I would watch it for, are hardly in it. There is no need for me to bother.

NOLAN'S Batman-I used to be a Nolan fangirl, but he lost me at "Inception"-what a load of stinky cheese. I used to blame DiCaprio for how awful that thing is, but I don't think a better actor or a better anything could have saved it. It was just BAD all the way around.

"The Following" and "Memento" will always be Nolan's two best films IMO-even though I do have a soft spot for "The Prestige".

I enjoyed Batman Begins, but thought "The Dark Knight" was way  overrated, and I may be one of the only ones here to think TH's Bane was a far better villain than HL's Joker. Overall, I enjoyed The Dark Knight Rises way more than The Dark Knight, and while CB certainly had his faults as Batman, I liked the franchise. I do think BB was the most consistent movie, tone wise, of the three, and the one I enjoy most on rewatch. Come to think of it, the second one I watched once in the theater and only ONE TIME after in all these years, while I have watched BB multiple times and always enjoy it.  

It could be all due to Liam Neeson, though I doubt it. I really do like Christian Bale, and I think he unfairly gets a lot of flack about his talent or lack of it. At least, he did during the height of the popularity of the Nolan movies.

Edited April 30, 2018 by IWantCandy71

[UYI]

I have virtually no interest in superhero movies, I just don't. So you can imagine how much I like the way they've dominated the box office the last several years (spoiler alert: not at all). 

I'm honestly kind of surprised this trend (probably not the right word here, I know) hasn't died down yet, to make room for other types of movies, that may not be as flashy, but are more grounded and human. It feels like something people would've tired of by now. 

[Joe]

15 minutes ago, UYI said:

I have virtually no interest in superhero movies, I just don't. So you can imagine how much I like the way they've dominated the box office the last several years (spoiler alert: not at all). 

I'm honestly kind of surprised this trend (probably not the right word here, I know) hasn't died down yet, to make room for other types of movies, that may not be as flashy, but are more grounded and human. It feels like something people would've tired of by now. 

Some of them have been good. Not all, obviously. But some. And while they're still good, people will keep going to see them. If Marvel put out a couple of bad ones* in a row, then we'll see if the trend continues.

* By the public's opinion, of course. IMO, they already have. I didn't like any of the 2017 MCU movies.

[Shannon L.]

9 hours ago, UYI said:

I have virtually no interest in superhero movies, I just don't. So you can imagine how much I like the way they've dominated the box office the last several years (spoiler alert: not at all). 

I'm honestly kind of surprised this trend (probably not the right word here, I know) hasn't died down yet, to make room for other types of movies, that may not be as flashy, but are more grounded and human. It feels like something people would've tired of by now. 

Marvel hit the trifecta:  Excellent casting throughout with dedicated actors, good to excellent stories /writing, and good to excellent special effects.  I differ with @Joe 's opinion only in that I don't think there's a bad one in the bunch. There are some that are weaker than others, but, imo, even those are still ok.  I'm in with Marvel until I think they're starting to lose the qualities that made the first 19 so good and I'm pretty sure that others feel the same, so I doubt the trend will die down until, as @Joe said, the public in general decides that they aren't up to par and gives up on them.  

If you had told me 10 years ago that my favorite movies would turn out to be syfy movies that included gods, superheros and aliens, I'd have told you that you were insane and didn't know me very well. 

[Enigma X]

@Shannon L. I agree. Furthermore, I don't think the production of superhero movies is stopping anyone from other genres from producing stellar films in that genre as well.

[Shannon L.]

13 hours ago, UYI said:

I'm honestly kind of surprised this trend (probably not the right word here, I know)

I forgot to add that I think the right term for this, which is one I've been using for a few weeks, is "[pop] cultural phenomenon" .  At least that's how I view it.  I'm 49 and I've seen a few in my lifetime, but nothing like this. 

@Enigma X, I agree. I'm a movie lover and there's nothing about my love of Marvel movies that's stopping me from going to see any movie that I find interesting.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Shannon L.

[Dandesun]

In 1950, Hollywood put out 123 Westerns. Traditional, biographical, comedy, singing cowboy, musical, serial, B-movie... but 123 in one year. So, you may think that superhero movies have taken over but there's plenty of other things to watch. There were more Singing Cowboy genre movies in 1950 than movies Marvel Studios has put out in ten years.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Dandesun

[UYI]

3 hours ago, Enigma X said:

@Shannon L. I agree. Furthermore, I don't think the production of superhero movies is stopping anyone from other genres from producing stellar films in that genre as well.

Sorry, you're right. I was just in a grumpy premature old person (I'm 29) mood last night because of the new Avengers movie coming out, and being. so. tired. of. hearing. it.dominate.EVERYTHING. these last few days!

Ahem. 

I was also thinking about how cool it would be to see women lead movies like A League of Their Own today. It feels like those don't really happen anymore. 

1 hour ago, Dandesun said:

In 1950, Hollywood put out 123 Westerns. Traditional, biographical, comedy, singing cowboy, musical, serial, B-movie... but 123 in one year. So, you may think that superhero movies have taken over but there's plenty of other things to watch. There were more Singing Cowboy genre movies in 1950 than movies Marvel Studios has put out in ten years.

You're right. I still stand behind my UO of not being into superhero movies, but I went too far in expressing my disdain for them.

[Dandesun]

I mean, I get it. Personally, I hate horror movies. I just... cannot... with them. And every couple of years there just seems to be a glut of them and I find myself going 'seriously?' And it also seems like every remotely popular horror movie turns into a series that reaches at least five movies.

And I imagine that the run of Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther, and Avengers: Infinity War makes it seem like it is a never-ending PR runaway train. I totally get the fatigue if you're not into it at all.

At the same time, what Marvel has accomplished is pretty unprecedented. I honestly don't know where it goes after A4 next year. They've set things up for the newer generation of heroes, which they have to do because real life actors age in a way that comic book characters do not, but I have to assume that, as all things must, the run will ebb only to be reborn a few years later.

It's all cyclical.

11 minutes ago, UYI said:

I was also thinking about how cool it would be to see women lead movies like A League of Their Own today. It feels like those don't really happen anymore. 

 

Well, there was Ghostbusters. Oceans 8 is coming out this year if I'm not mistaken. Rough Night and Girls Trip were both last year weren't they?

I'm really looking forward to Oceans 8. Great cast and a female run heist movie is right up my alley.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Dandesun

[UYI]

1 hour ago, Dandesun said:

I'm really looking forward to Oceans 8. Great cast and a female run heist movie is right up my alley.

Oooh, me too. That sounds fun.

[Irlandesa]

21 hours ago, UYI said:

I have virtually no interest in superhero movies, I just don't. So you can imagine how much I like the way they've dominated the box office the last several years (spoiler alert: not at all). 

I'm honestly kind of surprised this trend (probably not the right word here, I know) hasn't died down yet, to make room for other types of movies, that may not be as flashy, but are more grounded and human. It feels like something people would've tired of by now. 

I'm sitting in your corner.  Comics, sci fi and fantasy seem to be super popular in both movies and TV and I'm just so ugh about them.  At least with TV there is so much coming out that I feel like there is always something out there for me--even if I have to look at foreign shows.

That's not to say I'm totally opposed to these movies. I've seen a few stand alone superhero movies.  I've seen the first Iron Man, Ant Man and I plan to see Wonder Woman on HBO soon.  But all the others and the multi character movies hold so little interest for me.

10 hours ago, Enigma X said:

@Shannon L. I agree. Furthermore, I don't think the production of superhero movies is stopping anyone from other genres from producing stellar films in that genre as well.

In theory, you're right, but there are only so many resources in terms of money and theater seats available.  Business wise, it makes sense to allocate 200 million to a superhero movie that is going to almost certainly make back its budget than allocate 50 million each to four different pictures and take the gamble that some of them won't make back their budget.  I get that.  But there does seem to be fewer mid-budget movies being made.  It's either indie (20 million or under) or big budget.

And then there's the space these movies take up in theaters.  I went to see Game Night the weekend it came out which was the week after Black Panther* came out.  We had to go to three different theaters to try to get a Sunday matinee ticket because theaters automatically allocated all the big theaters to Black Panther and the smaller rooms with Game Night filled up quickly.  So that audience who just goes to the movies to see something really wouldn't have much choice as what they were going to watch.

Now Game Night was a pretty good comedy so your point that good movies in different genres can still get made is true but anecdotally, I do feel like there has been some cost with the superhero obsession.  And they face challenges once they are released.

*Which I'll probably see.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Irlandesa

[IWantCandy71]

23 hours ago, UYI said:

I have virtually no interest in superhero movies, I just don't. So you can imagine how much I like the way they've dominated the box office the last several years (spoiler alert: not at all). 

I'm honestly kind of surprised this trend (probably not the right word here, I know) hasn't died down yet, to make room for other types of movies, that may not be as flashy, but are more grounded and human. It feels like something people would've tired of by now. 

I wanna HUG you for this. The Marvel franchise for me is soulless and empty. I don't mean there are never emotional moments. But overall, there's nothing there in terms of complexity or layers in the storytelling and characters. There's nothing wrong with a good popcorn movie now and then. Sometimes. If it's done well, and gives you characters that don't make you want to shove them off a cliff.  

Edited May 1, 2018 by IWantCandy71

[IWantCandy71]

10 hours ago, Dandesun said:

In 1950, Hollywood put out 123 Westerns. Traditional, biographical, comedy, singing cowboy, musical, serial, B-movie... but 123 in one year. So, you may think that superhero movies have taken over but there's plenty of other things to watch. There were more Singing Cowboy genre movies in 1950 than movies Marvel Studios has put out in ten years.

 

I don't think they've "taken over". If they had, I wouldn't be able to mostly ignore their existence so effectively.

My biggest problem  ? If I'm investing in a movie, there has to be true risk and emotional stakes. If you can repeatedly kill a character and then bring them back (oftentimes without even explaining their death) then there is literally no emotional stake in that character or relationship.  How can you weep over a character "dying" when you know they aren't really dead? It's the number one failing of the TV show "Heroes", and it's a huge part of what led to it's downfall. My favorite, Nathan, who was that show's version of "Superman", kept dying and being brought back to life. By the end of it, people mocked the characters and the show. It was a joke. By the same vein, if a character, who by rights, really should be DEAD dead, a long time ago, keeps somehow miraculously surviving, I no longer care if they get a supposed "mortal" wound. There's no drama, because he'll either survive it, be brought back to life, or cloned. 

 

Quote

You're right. I still stand behind my UO of not being into superhero movies, but I went too far in expressing my disdain for them.

You didn't go too far at all. This is the UO thread, not the Marvel is the Bestest!Thing!Ever! thread. All opinions are valid and you have a right to express how you feel just as anyone who feels the opposite has that right as well.

I am truly disappointed in RDJ though. I just see him as a sellout now. But, we all have to eat, right ? Rock on, RDJ. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by IWantCandy71

[Joe]

My unpopular superhero opinion is Spider-Man movies. I hated all three of the Raimi ones. They really rubbed me the wrong way. I think it's a Raimi thing, because I don't like his other projects either. Anyway, they left such a bad taste in my mouth that I didn't watch the Andrew Garfield movies. I found Tom Holland annoying in Civil War. The trailer for his own movie I couldn't even finish watching. Yes, I even found a trailer unwatchable. However, he's all right in Infinity War. But I don't plan on watching his next movie either.

[Apprentice79]

9 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

I wanna HUG you for this. The Marvel franchise for me is soulless and empty. I don't mean there are never emotional moments. But overall, there's nothing there in terms of complexity or layers in the storytelling and characters. There's nothing wrong with a good popcorn movie now and then. Sometimes. If it's done well, and gives you characters that don't make you want to shove them off a cliff.  

 

For me, Black Panther had depth because it is rooted in it's Blackness. It makes no apologies for it.  It is a film centered on Black people who have agency and are powerful in their own right.  They are rulers of a kingdom, inventors, innovators.  It does not deal with Black poverty, Black pain and Black suffering. The usual tropes associated with Black people. Wakanda is a country that had never been colonized or experienced the slave trade.  The people were able to evolved on their own terms and has rejected western ideas on what it means to Black or in their case, what it means to be African. In fact, they use the West contempt for people who look like them, by pretending to be a poor country, to hide the source of their immense wealth, vibranium. That is what makes Black Panther so unique and why it resonated with people around the world. Black Panther is aspirational. It pisses me off that all of this was destroyed with the events of  Avengers: Infinity war.  I don't want to spoil it for those on this thread who have not seen the movie.  I will never forgive Marvel for that.. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Apprentice79

[Dandesun]

22 hours ago, UYI said:

Sorry, you're right. I was just in a grumpy premature old person (I'm 29) mood last night because of the new Avengers movie coming out, and being. so. tired. of. hearing. it.dominate.EVERYTHING. these last few days!

Ahem. 

I was also thinking about how cool it would be to see women lead movies like A League of Their Own today. It feels like those don't really happen anymore. 

You're right. I still stand behind my UO of not being into superhero movies, but I went too far in expressing my disdain for them.

You don't have to apologize for not liking superhero movies. It's the forum. My feelings weren't hurt at all. My point about the Westerns was mainly 'this too shall pass.' And it will. A genre will take over for a bit and be where all of the attention is, then something else will rise to the top... as I said, it's all cyclical.

But it could be worse. 20 singing cowboy movies in one year really seems like way too much. Perhaps that's why the genre was gone by 1954.

[IWantCandy71]

9 hours ago, Apprentice79 said:

For me, Black Panther had depth because it is rooted in it's Blackness. It makes no apologies for it.  It is a film centered on Black people who have agency and are powerful in their own right.  They are rulers of a kingdom, inventors, innovators.  It does not deal with Black poverty, Black pain and Black suffering. The usual tropes associated with Black people. Wakanda is a country that had never been colonized or experienced the slave trade.  The people were able to evolved on their own terms and has rejected western ideas on what it means to Black or in their case, what it means to be African. In fact, they use the West contempt for people who look like them, by pretending to be a poor country, to hide the source of their immense wealth, vibranium. That is what makes Black Panther so unique and why it resonated with people around the world. Black Panther is aspirational. It pisses me off that all of this was destroyed with the events of  Avengers: Infinity war.  I don't want to spoil it for those on this thread who have not seen the movie.  I will never forgive Marvel for that.. 

Haven't seen BP and probably won't. Again, it's the "hype" thing. Just like Dark Knight wasn't half as good as it was built up to be, I have no doubt I'll be disappointed by some part of it.

[Apprentice79]

1 minute ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Haven't seen BP and probably won't. Again, it's the "hype" thing. Just like Dark Knight wasn't half as good as it was built up to be, I have no doubt I'll be disappointed by some part of it.

No movie will ever have 100% approval..

[Wiendish Fitch]

16 minutes ago, Apprentice79 said:

No movie will ever have 100% approval..

Except Paddington 2, according to Rotten Tomatoes. 

[Apprentice79]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Except Paddington 2, according to Rotten Tomatoes. 

Black Panther had that rating as well, but, 1 bad review cost it, the 100%.

[SmithW6079]

On 4/30/2018 at 1:13 PM, Dandesun said:

In 1950, Hollywood put out 123 Westerns. Traditional, biographical, comedy, singing cowboy, musical, serial, B-movie... but 123 in one year. So, you may think that superhero movies have taken over but there's plenty of other things to watch. There were more Singing Cowboy genre movies in 1950 than movies Marvel Studios has put out in ten years.

 

To be fair, movies back in those days didn't last for three hours of special effect pyrotechnics. They told stories economically and efficiently. 

There's no reason movies need to be 2 1/2 to three hours long, especially if most of the story consists of exploding things. 

Also, superheroes are dicks who regularly destroy cities and kill thousands of people.

I'm not a big fan of either the superhero movies or the Star Wars movies, although I've gone to see them. 

Edited May 3, 2018 by SmithW6079

[IWantCandy71]

As to the "superheroes" being responsible for thousands of deaths, YUP. I think that's part of the reason I hate it. I'm supposed to hate the villains because they killed a character I'm supposed to care about, but the deaths the "heroes" cause are okay because those people are "bad".

Uh, NOPE. Yes, some of the deaths are unavoidable collateral damage, but overall....I don't see a huge difference between the heroes and the villains in those movies. They're all arrogant and smug and unbearable, save for a few precious exceptions.

[Blergh]

UO the movie Karate Kid, I thought it downright disturbing that the Cobra Sensei Kreis made no secret of having his entire dojo of minors act out a vendetta to physically harm (if not debilate)   a single much smaller, scrawnier kid (Daniel)- yet no adult authority figure or parent of these dojo cultees ever attempted to call him on this much less try to prosecute him for wanting to harm a kid. Only Mr. Miyagi even attempted to call him on it (and yes he definitely taught Daniel to defend himself magnificently ) but why was this one adult allowed to have so much control over these troubled teens' lives in the first place?

[Raja]

4 hours ago, Blergh said:

UO the movie Karate Kid, I thought it downright disturbing that the Cobra Sensei Kreis made no secret of having his entire dojo of minors act out a vendetta to physically harm (if not debilate)   a single much smaller, scrawnier kid (Daniel)- yet no adult authority figure or parent of these dojo cultees ever attempted to call him on this much less try to prosecute him for wanting to harm a kid. Only Mr. Miyagi even attempted to call him on it (and yes he definitely taught Daniel to defend himself magnificently ) but why was this one adult allowed to have so much control over these troubled teens' lives in the first place?

It was set in a period when those coaches were the only adults around and parents were not at every practice and game of organized sports 

[Blergh]

7 hours ago, Raja said:

It was set in a period when those coaches were the only adults around and parents were not at every practice and game of organized sports 

Beg to differ, Raja (since I WAS around during that period).

Yep, there weren't as many parents around then as now attending practices and games but there were always a few around AND others would have at least asked their offspring what was going on. Moreover, the Cobra dojo was NOT a school sanctioned team but a private one where these parents would have PAID Kreis to mentor their offspring so why wouldn't they have at least wondered what benefits they were getting from this arrangement.  But it seems the parents in Karate Kid had long since just checked out of what was happening with their sons during their times with Kreis and if any of them actually attended the climactic game and saw that Kreis was bullying them to enact his personal vendetta against a single much smaller kid, they sure kept quiet about it!   And why would none of them have at least wondered if there might have been something even more sinister re Kreis's MO considering that he was unmarried, had no family or even a known girlfriend yet wanted to entirely dominate  virtually every aspect of the lives of these youths he was paid to train? Daniel's own mother had had to relocate to a new city   to find a viable means to support herself and her son all on her own- yet she DID make time to at least attend the tournament and wanted to keep her son safe. Yet, as sympathetic as she was, even SHE didn't seem to consider confronting Kreis  over why he was picking on a minor child much less urging the authorities to take a look at Kreis's dojo to see how/why this had become a bullying cult.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Blergh
addendum

[callie lee 29]

I like Katherine Heigl movies.  Hell, I like Katherine Heigl. I wish she was in more stuff. 

[AimingforYoko]

On 5/3/2018 at 7:20 AM, SmithW6079 said:

There's no reason movies need to be 2 1/2 to three hours long

I'm not against longer movies per se, but as I've gotten older I do have to be more judicious with my beverage choices.

[Shannon L.]

11 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

I'm not against longer movies per se, but as I've gotten older I do have to be more judicious with my beverage choices.

Oh yes.  With Infinity War, I didn't drink anything after a noon lunch.  If my mouth was dry, I took a baby sip of water and that was it.   As for 2 1/2 hour movies, it's risky because there are some movies where 2 hours seem way too long, but there have been certain franchises that I have enjoyed so much, that if I see that the time is just under 2 hours, I get disappointed. 

[Irlandesa]

I was watching The Chew the other day and they mentioned that there's an app that tells you when the best time to go to the bathroom in a movie is.  I can't remember what they said but here's one I found.

http://runpee.com/

Do not dehydrate yourself any longer!

[Shannon L.]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

I was watching The Chew the other day and they mentioned that there's an app that tells you when the best time to go to the bathroom in a movie is.  I can't remember what they said but here's one I found.

http://runpee.com/

Do not dehydrate yourself any longer!

I have that app and love it!  But, there are some movies, like Infinity War that I don't want to be spoiled for and for those movies, I refuse to look at it, just in case.  I do use it for the large majority of them, though.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Shannon L.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I vastly preferred Solo to Rogue One (snore) and The Last Jedi (an overrated, overlong mess). I also think Emilia Clarke steals the movie.

[UYI]

The Hand that Rocks the Cradle is an awesome movie, but part of me would have welcomed an ending where Rebecca DeMornay's character kills off the entire family for being so monumentally stupid. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by UYI

[Shannon L.]

5 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I vastly preferred Solo to Rogue One (snore) and The Last Jedi (an overrated, overlong mess). I also think Emilia Clarke steals the movie.

There were things I liked about both Solo and Rogue One and can't really choose one over the other, but it would appear that thinking that the actor who played Han was good casting.  I know he's shorter than Harrison Ford, but I honestly had no recollection* of his height, so that didn't bother me at all.  IMO, he captured the essence of Han quite well.

*I'm not a big Star Wars fan, so I've only seen the originals a couple of times--back when they first came out and again a number of years ago, so my recollection of most things in those movies isn't great.  But from what I remember of Han, I think this actor did well. 

[Dandesun]

On 5/3/2018 at 5:20 AM, SmithW6079 said:

To be fair, movies back in those days didn't last for three hours of special effect pyrotechnics. They told stories economically and efficiently. 

There's no reason movies need to be 2 1/2 to three hours long, especially if most of the story consists of exploding things. 

 

 

Back in those days going to the movies was a day-long affair. You had a cartoon and a newsreel and a serial short (usually more) and then a feature. And if you went to a double-feature... Let's say you went to see a double feature of cowboy movies featuring at least two serial shorts of cowboys. That's a fuckton of cowboys in one sitting is all I'm saying.

Back in the day when you had epically long movies (is 2 1/2 hours of dancing and singing any better than exploding things or is it just a matter of preference?) they'd at least give you an intermission.

(Fuckton of Cowboys will, incidentally, be the name of my band.)

Edited May 31, 2018 by Dandesun

[JessePinkman]

19 hours ago, Dandesun said:

Back in those days going to the movies was a day-long affair. You had a cartoon and a newsreel and a serial short (usually more) and then a feature. And if you went to a double-feature... Let's say you went to see a double feature of cowboy movies featuring at least two serial shorts of cowboys. That's a fuckton of cowboys in one sitting is all I'm saying.

Back in the day when you had epically long movies (is 2 1/2 hours of dancing and singing any better than exploding things or is it just a matter of preference?) they'd at least give you an intermission.

(Fuckton of Cowboys will, incidentally, be the name of my band.)

Yep. And movies aren’t actually much longer than they used to be. But I guess anything seems longer when you don't like it. Book Club was under 2 hours and felt endless.

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

Yep. And movies aren’t actually much longer than they used to be. But I guess anything seems longer when you don't like it. Book Club was under 2 hours and felt endless.

Ha! I can only imagine.

[Shannon L.]

Anything over two hours is really common now, but a quick google search will show plenty of movies dating back to the early 60s (except Gone With the Wind, which was released in 1939) that were well over 2 hours and, in some cases, a little over 3. 

But, dear God, do I wish they still had 10-15 minute intermissions for anything over 2 hours! 

[proserpina65]

9 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Anything over two hours is really common now, but a quick google search will show plenty of movies dating back to the early 60s (except Gone With the Wind, which was released in 1939) that were well over 2 hours and, in some cases, a little over 3. 

But, dear God, do I wish they still had 10-15 minute intermissions for anything over 2 hours! 

Agreed.  I hate missing part of the movie for a pee break, but I don't have any choice in the matter sometimes.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I understand why some movies need to be more than 2 hours long (Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.), but why does it feel like most movies nowadays need to be? For instance, can anyone anywhere give me any reason why Trainwreck had to be 2 hours?! Considering the (IMO) superior and annoying overlooked Young Adult told a similar story in 93 minutes, that's especially frustrating. 

I long for the days when live-action movies could be less than 90 minutes. Freaks and Duck Soup, for instance, don't even crack and hour and 10 minutes.

[Dandesun]

I think it's a result of movies going much shorter for awhile but being way more expensive to go to. I mean, movie goers were growing increasingly unhappy with having to pay more and more for tickets and snacks (and, oftentimes, a babysitter) for an 85 minute movie that you could go to Blockbuster for seven months later for much much less.

which tells you when this discontent started.

They had to become worth it. Even now we debate as to whether something SHOULD be seen on the big screen as opposed to what you can wait for at home. So spectacle and length are big factors as to whether or not it's worth the expense to see in theaters.

[Shannon L.]

5 minutes ago, Dandesun said:

They had to become worth it. Even now we debate as to whether something SHOULD be seen on the big screen as opposed to what you can wait for at home. So spectacle and length are big factors as to whether or not it's worth the expense to see in theaters.

I'm one those people who still loves the movie going experience and prefers to watch movies in a theater.  Most of the time, if I wait until a movie gets to dvd, I've lost interest in it.  However, the only movies I'll pay full price for are the longer, spectacular ones.  If I want to see a drama, comedy or rom-com (or a big budget one that I think looks interesting, but is getting just "ok" reviews or worse), I'll wait until I can get to a cheaper matinee. 

[PepSinger]

For me, acting is a large component. If I think the acting in the movie will be excellent enough to hold my interest after theatres, then I’ll wait depending on the circumstances. I can be captivated by excellent acting on a 2” screen. I’ve been proven right by Manchester by the Sea and I, Tonya just to name a couple off the top of my head. 

[Blergh]

My UO re Dangerous Liaisons: Despite her oft-quoted declaration that she was born to avenge her sex and dominate men, I do not consider the Marquise de Merteuil to have been a feminist or proto-feminist.

 Even though Cecile is a total stranger to her( apart from being betrothed to the Marquise's former flame) the Marquise encourages Valmont to rape her in her own room then, after the girl seeks her help, insists on the girl continuing to let Valmont have his way with her which results in her having a miscarriage before Cecile helps console Madame Tourvel on the latter's deathbed then ultimately decides to entomb herself in a convent.

Oh, and not one mention of the former flame's reaction to this gross manipulation much less hint of suffering happening on his part despite his fiancee's life being wrecked.

 Then Madame Tourvel is grossly toyed with by the Marquise solely because she actually strives to keep her principles. Thus,  the Marquise has Valmont seduce her until said principles are used against her then when her pity is taken advantage of by Valmont, the Marquise insists he cruelly dump her which sets a horrible mortal decline.

 Oh, Valmont upsets the Marquise, not by his mistreatment of women, but by actually daring to become genuinely smitten by Madame Tourvel rather than with HER and I couldn't help but get that her fury over Valmont's death wasn't so much the loss of a love but the fact that Valmont used his dying breath to declare his affection for Madame Tourvel AND to ruin the Marquise's rep via the letters she herself had written.

I knew when, despite her wealth and prominence, the Marquise attends the opera solo, she was doomed because in those days, NO lady went to the opera solo. If she weren't married, she'd have found a paramour to take her or, failing that a female relative, friend or even a servant to go with her but the Marquise evidently couldn't even convince her own staff to be seen  with her there. Oh, yes, IMO, she DID deserve the boos for what she'd done to those innocent women.

  Moreover,  ALL she succeeded in doing was ruin others of her own gender rather than avenge any of them (which she never even attempted to do for any female besides herself)  despite the wealth and power at her disposal.