Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Shannon L.

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

The duct tape of actors, except in Dogma and Love Actually. In both, he's not in enough scenes to knit together the mess; though Dogma is better.

I just think that Love Actually has this underlying layer of misogyny that is inescapable and unpleasant. There are a number of "nice guy" characters who somehow luck into either relationships or validations of their feelings despite never having any or a meaningful conversation with the women they are interested in or treating the women who love them terribly. If that's my unpopular opinion, I'll state it proudly. Love Actually is terrible. It's "nice guy" propaganda bullshit.

I hate Love Actually and you are so right about the underlying misogyny.  I mean, in every movie he's made, Richard Curtis has named an unlikable character "Bernard" because his college girlfriend left him for a man named Bernard -- the man is 62 years old still seeking a petty revenge against a college girlfriend who had the audacity to choose someone else?

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

58 minutes ago, dusang said:

I mean, in every movie he's made, Richard Curtis has named an unlikable character "Bernard" because his college girlfriend left him for a man named Bernard

I don't know about his other movies, but the Bernard in Four Weddings and a Funeral was very likeable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, proserpina65 said:

I don't know about his other movies, but the Bernard in Four Weddings and a Funeral was very likeable.

Honestly, I only know that from IMDb Trivia entries for his various films.  In Love Actually the "Bernard" is the son of Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, who Emma complains about, so it's not always a totally unlikable character, more someone who is hapless or unpopular. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1446547/Why-Tory-MP-is-the-father-of-all-Bernards.html

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, dusang said:

Honestly, I only know that from IMDb Trivia entries for his various films.  In Love Actually the "Bernard" is the son of Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, who Emma complains about, so it's not always a totally unlikable character, more someone who is hapless or unpopular. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1446547/Why-Tory-MP-is-the-father-of-all-Bernards.html

That does fit in with Four Weddings - that Bernard is kind of a bumbler, but a nice one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think The Warriors is a stupid, stupid, stupid movie. The plot is incoherent, the characters are horrible and shoddily written, and it was the longest 93 minutes of my life. Why is this so beloved? Is the problem me?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I didn’t like Black Panther nearly as much upon rewatch. I think I was caught up in the frenzy on the first go round. It’s fine but not one I’ll rewatch multiple times. I feel like it will be like Antman for me. If it’s on I’ll watch the pieces of it I like the most but  I’ll click away during large chunks of it. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, ramble said:

I didn’t like Black Panther nearly as much upon rewatch. I think I was caught up in the frenzy on the first go round. It’s fine but not one I’ll rewatch multiple times. I feel like it will be like Antman for me. If it’s on I’ll watch the pieces of it I like the most but  I’ll click away during large chunks of it. 

I find Ant-Man highly rewatchable.

I do agree to certain extent about Black Panther. It's got a case of the Lion Kings and by that I mean the Lion King stage musical. When you first watch the Lion King stage musical, you're in awe. You see the sets, the costumes, the production design, the directing, and you're like "Holy shit! This is the greatest thing I've ever seen." And then after you get over that, you realize that you're watching the Lion King, which is a kiddie version of Hamlet that's weirdly draggy in the middle and only has 2 good Elton John songs.

Black Panther is a little like that. The production and costume design are phenomenal. The musical score is fantastic. The story is really good (there are huge parts of it that really resonate with me) as is the directing. The problem with Black Panther is Black Panther/T'Challa. He's the least interesting character in the film. He's so quiet and remote that almost every memorable moment in the film has nothing to do with him.

In contrast, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a "serious" Marvel film, but it's highly rewatchable, even though there are a handful of fairly serious plot holes that have to do with Sam, Bucky, and that face disguise tech. The film leads to an even bigger plot hole for Civil War. Tony is angry and betrayed because Steve knew/suspected that Bucky killed Tony's parents, but Natasha also knew that and never said shit to Tony either. Whatever. The reason Winter Soldier is rewatchable is because Chris Evans is just putting on a performance where you just see everything coming off of Cap in waves--his sadness, loneliness, weariness, and his resolve. His face is telling ALL of the story.

Unfortunately, the person who is giving that level of performance is Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger, but Killmonger isn't the protagonist. In this battle of the Reggies, Reggie #2 wins.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Black Panther is a little like that. The production and costume design are phenomenal. The musical score is fantastic. The story is really good (there are huge parts of it that really resonate with me) as is the directing. The problem with Black Panther is Black Panther/T'Challa. He's the least interesting character in the film. He's so quiet and remote that almost every memorable moment in the film has nothing to do with him.

Boom. That's the problem.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:04 PM, HunterHunted said:

The duct tape of actors, except in Dogma and Love Actually. In both, he's not in enough scenes to knit together the mess; though Dogma is better.

Dogma is let down by the inert, unsympathetic and dreary protagonist, played with utter lifelessness by Linda Fiorentino. I can't help thinking that the movie would have been so much better if Janeane Garofalo, who has a small role as Fiorentino's co-worker, was the main character instead.

But even so, there's greatness in there. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck give legitimately good performances, George Carlin is hilarious, and Alan Rickman is wonderfully Alan  Rickman. Chris Rock is mostly funny, and so is Salma Hayek, in her small role.

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post

Agreed.  I think Dogma would have been so much better if they had cast literally anyone besides Linda Fiorentino.  She just drags the movie down when everyone else around her is doing great.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/13/2018 at 1:26 AM, HunterHunted said:

In contrast, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a "serious" Marvel film, but it's highly rewatchable, even though there are a handful of fairly serious plot holes that have to do with Sam, Bucky, and that face disguise tech. The film leads to an even bigger plot hole for Civil War. Tony is angry and betrayed because Steve knew/suspected that Bucky killed Tony's parents, but Natasha also knew that and never said shit to Tony either.

Couple of things, hopefully without cranking up the whole Civil War debate again.

I'm perfectly comfortable putting all the blame on Steve "I'm always honest" Rogers even if Natasha was aware that Bucky killed the Starks, and in fact I like it better that Nat skates while Tony gets pissed at Cap. I like Steve, but it was about damn time somebody got genuinely angry at him for something, instead of where he maybe makes a mistake but everyone (Peggy, Natasha, Sam, Bucky) assures him it isn't his fault and he's not responsible. In WS, Natasha's sitting there bleeding from a gunshot wound to the point that Sam says she might die if she doesn't get some medical attention, and all Steve can do is say, "Wah, Bucky didn't remember me." Not his fault! A nationally broadcast news program mentions Wanda by name in CW after the events in the beginning of the film. Not Steve, whose moment of Barnes-obsessed distraction caused the incident, but Wanda, who was actually on point and likely prevented more casualties since he was too out of it to offer help.  Perfectly acceptable! A total stranger accosts Tony in an otherwise deserted hallway and accuses him of killing her son, even though - surprise - Steve was just as present and gets zero of the blame for it. So big deal if he finally has to deal with some consequences while someone else goes scot-free. It was beyond overdue at that point.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

A Star is Born (2018)

The songs:  I like Always Remember Us This Way better than Shallow.

The story (in spoiler tags, just in case)

Spoiler

Before I saw it, I heard things from fans like "I was gutted", "An hour later and I'm still in shock", "I can't stop crying".  The women in front of us were sobbing.  I thought the movie was great.  I bought their love story because of the chemistry between the two actors.  It's deserving of a few nominations and a couple of wins, imo.  However, I didn't cry (and I can get very emotional at movies).  I think it had to do with the whirlwind that was the first hour or so--the way they covered a year or two in the first hour, so I wasn't quite as invested in how they grew to love each other because we didn't see it happen.  I'm glad that Bradley made the decision not to show Ally being told what happened and her initial breakdown over the news because that in itself was powerful in it's own way, but if they had shown that scene, then I'd have probably been sobbing, too.  But as it was shown?  It was just really sad, but not something that "gutted" me. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

10 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I'm perfectly comfortable putting all the blame on Steve "I'm always honest" Rogers even if Natasha was aware that Bucky killed the Starks, and in fact I like it better that Nat skates while Tony gets pissed at Cap. I like Steve, but it was about damn time somebody got genuinely angry at him for something, instead of where he maybe makes a mistake but everyone (Peggy, Natasha, Sam, Bucky) assures him it isn't his fault and he's not responsible. In WS, Natasha's sitting there bleeding from a gunshot wound to the point that Sam says she might die if she doesn't get some medical attention, and all Steve can do is say, "Wah, Bucky didn't remember me." Not his fault! A nationally broadcast news program mentions Wanda by name in CW after the events in the beginning of the film. Not Steve, whose moment of Barnes-obsessed distraction caused the incident, but Wanda, who was actually on point and likely prevented more casualties since he was too out of it to offer help.  Perfectly acceptable! A total stranger accosts Tony in an otherwise deserted hallway and accuses him of killing her son, even though - surprise - Steve was just as present and gets zero of the blame for it. So big deal if he finally has to deal with some consequences while someone else goes scot-free. It was beyond overdue at that point.

Is it unpopular that I like Steve even better because of these faults? I like that he just basically shut down when his friend came back from the dead. Perfect people are boring. I had no problem with Tony being angry with Steve, the only thing I wished is that they would have built that friendship up a bit better. I always thought Tony thinks they're better friends than they are but maybe we're supposed to think that and that's why Tony feels so betrayed. Another UO I have is that I didn't enter into any Tony/Steve debates about Civil War, I could see both their sides. It's all very human. I'm also okay with Natasha skating about not telling Tony about Bucky. I do think it was Steve's job to do that. But you know, then we don't get the DRAMA.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

A total stranger accosts Tony in an otherwise deserted hallway and accuses him of killing her son, even though - surprise - Steve was just as present and gets zero of the blame for it.

Steve gets zero of the blame for Ultron & Sokovia because he had nothing to do with Ultron's existence. That was on Tony, Bruce, Wanda, Pietro & Thor.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, festivus said:

Is it unpopular that I like Steve even better because of these faults? I like that he just basically shut down when his friend came back from the dead. Perfect people are boring. I had no problem with Tony being angry with Steve, the only thing I wished is that they would have built that friendship up a bit better. I always thought Tony thinks they're better friends than they are but maybe we're supposed to think that and that's why Tony feels so betrayed. Another UO I have is that I didn't enter into any Tony/Steve debates about Civil War, I could see both their sides. It's all very human. I'm also okay with Natasha skating about not telling Tony about Bucky. I do think it was Steve's job to do that. But you know, then we don't get the DRAMA.

Another Unpopular Opinion: Nat, and especially Sam, is/are every bit as important to, and for, Steve as Bucky. Steve highly values, thoroughly relies on, and repeatedly confides in them, as much as Bucky. It's really annoying to constantly have their respective places in Steve's life diminished because certain fanbases constantly push their agenda.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dee said:

Another Unpopular Opinion: Nat, and especially Sam, is/are every bit as important to, and for, Steve as Bucky. Steve highly values, thoroughly relies on, and repeatedly confides in them, as much as Bucky. It's really annoying to constantly have their respective places in Steve's life diminished because certain fanbases constantly push their agenda.

Bucky should have been given time to shine on his own, and move out of Steve's shadow, just like he did in the comic books. But Marvel movies don't bother doing things like that. Most of the characters get less complicated, the more they appear, and become a collection of recognisable character beats. Bucky just gets lumped in as 'Steve's bestie' all the time, and has no real personality beyond that. So very disappointing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I hate Bucky with every fiber of my being, and I just want him gone. I'm seriously so sick and tired of that whiny, uninteresting millstone around everyone's necks.

Moving along, I greatly prefer the 1973 Don't Be Afraid of the Dark to the 2011 remake. Yeah, the original is a bit creaky and relies on Idiot Plot contrivances, but there's just something about the quiet scares and practical effects that get under the skin (the creatures are genuinely creepy). The remake is too long, too bloated, too CGI-heavy, too needlessly gruesome, and it has friggin' Katie Holmes.

I will allow that the remake improves upon the climax, but that's it. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

Bucky just gets lumped in as 'Steve's bestie' all the time, and has no real personality beyond that. So very disappointing.

He kind of doesn't but I love him anyway. (probably because of all the fanfic I read and I'm reading the comics now too) Maybe he'll get some development in the movies to come. My UO is that I just don't care about Wanda. I want to and I recognize that Elizabeth Olsen is a good actress, but I just don't. Maybe it's because they pair her with Vision and I'm not that interested in him either. They shouldn't have killed her brother, then maybe I would care more.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

After griping about the live-action Grinch elsewhere, this reminds me...

I know it's wrong, but I'm going to go ahead scapegoat Wicked (both the novel and the musical) for starting the trend of "tragic villain backstory that automatically makes them sympathetic, justifies their actions, and it's the heroes who are wrong blah-blah-blah". Maybe Wicked wasn't the first to do this, but it seems to be the most recent (and still relevant) example, and I'm tired of it.

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but maybe I don't want to sympathize with the villain! Maybe I want either indulge my righteous side by booing and hissing at them, or indulge my mischievous side by enjoying their villainy without thinking about their mommy/daddy/society/whatever issues!

IMO, the Grinch didn't need any kind of backstory. Making Gaston a war veteran actually made him less sympathetic (and is insulting to real veterans). Most Star Wars fans wish they had never learned about Darth Vader's past. Magneto being a Holocaust survivor doesn't change what a monstrous hypocrite he is.

Mind you, I'm not saying good and/or enjoyable stories can't spring from this, but in the remakes/franchise glut of late, it's being used as a crutch, and it's getting really, really, really tiresome to me.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Making Gaston a war veteran actually made him less sympathetic (and is insulting to real veterans). 

I don't think they were trying to make Gaston sympathetic, it just gave the townspeople another reason to revere him so much. But WORD everything else you said about tiresome tragic backstories. Once Upon A Time abused the crap out of it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

After griping about the live-action Grinch elsewhere, this reminds me...

I know it's wrong, but I'm going to go ahead scapegoat Wicked (both the novel and the musical) for starting the trend of "tragic villain backstory that automatically makes them sympathetic, justifies their actions, and it's the heroes who are wrong blah-blah-blah". Maybe Wicked wasn't the first to do this, but it seems to be the most recent (and still relevant) example, and I'm tired of it.

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but maybe I don't want to sympathize with the villain! Maybe I want either indulge my righteous side by booing and hissing at them, or indulge my mischievous side by enjoying their villainy without thinking about their mommy/daddy/society/whatever issues!

IMO, the Grinch didn't need any kind of backstory. Making Gaston a war veteran actually made him less sympathetic (and is insulting to real veterans). Most Star Wars fans wish they had never learned about Darth Vader's past. Magneto being a Holocaust survivor doesn't change what a monstrous hypocrite he is.

Mind you, I'm not saying good and/or enjoyable stories can't spring from this, but in the remakes/franchise glut of late, it's being used as a crutch, and it's getting really, really, really tiresome to me.

giphy.gif

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Sweet Tee said:

I quit Once Upon a Time way back in season two because I could no longer stand the "poor Regina" mentality of the show.

I so wish I had done that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

After griping about the live-action Grinch elsewhere, this reminds me...

I know it's wrong, but I'm going to go ahead scapegoat Wicked (both the novel and the musical) for starting the trend of "tragic villain backstory that automatically makes them sympathetic, justifies their actions, and it's the heroes who are wrong blah-blah-blah". Maybe Wicked wasn't the first to do this, but it seems to be the most recent (and still relevant) example, and I'm tired of it.

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but maybe I don't want to sympathize with the villain! Maybe I want either indulge my righteous side by booing and hissing at them, or indulge my mischievous side by enjoying their villainy without thinking about their mommy/daddy/society/whatever issues!

IMO, the Grinch didn't need any kind of backstory. Making Gaston a war veteran actually made him less sympathetic (and is insulting to real veterans). Most Star Wars fans wish they had never learned about Darth Vader's past. Magneto being a Holocaust survivor doesn't change what a monstrous hypocrite he is.

Mind you, I'm not saying good and/or enjoyable stories can't spring from this, but in the remakes/franchise glut of late, it's being used as a crutch, and it's getting really, really, really tiresome to me.

I so wish I could like this a million times. Because yes. I don't mind to a point to know some of the villains background even though in many cases it really isn't necessary. But its almost always used to justify all the horrible crap they do later. That's what I can't stand. Nothing justifies that. Nothing justifies slaughtering the entire Jedi order and being coming the enforcer for the evil dictator. Nothing justifies murdering a crap load of people. I don't want watch some poor villain well he was treated like crap so of course he became evil and murdered a lot of people. Oh, mommy or daddy or society "made" the villain into what he or she is. Boo hoo, please cry and feel so sorry for the villain that you forget all about the horrible crimes he or she committed. Who cares at the end right? Or she right? Give me a villain who owns their villainy. Hades in Hercules was fun because he wasn't a sad-sack villain he was having a blast. The villain in Phonebooth starts crying and talking about his crappy childhood and laughs he made the whole thing up. He had fine childhood. People will good backgrounds, childhoods become villains too. I want the villains to get what they deserve. I want to see the heroes defeat them. I love Return of the Jedi watching the Rebel Alliance defeating the Empire, I love watching the Ewoks helping, and Vader throwing Palpatine into the reactor core. It was sad when Anakin died. But it also worked. He couldn't really come back with Luke after everything he did. He'd end up locked up for the rest of his life or executed. Having him die makes more sense and yes Luke is sad. And its a sad scene. But then its over.  I loved watching everyone celebrating at the end. Happy, Han and Leia are together, Luke and Leia are together, the fireworks and different planets celebrating, Luke burning away the last of Vader. It feels like its all over.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

8 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I know it's wrong, but I'm going to go ahead scapegoat Wicked (both the novel and the musical) for starting the trend of "tragic villain backstory that automatically makes them sympathetic, justifies their actions, and it's the heroes who are wrong blah-blah-blah". Maybe Wicked wasn't the first to do this, but it seems to be the most recent (and still relevant) example, and I'm tired of it.

I don't remember the book that well, but isn't Wicked more of an example of using an existing idea to build a completely new story? It doesn't really add a tragic backstory to an existing character and goes, see this is why she murders everyone, but rather changes the entire setting of the story where the authorities are actually the bad guys and make her into this villain to have someone to blame. In the musical she didn't actually do the things she's accused of, she's a scapegoat for the government's evil doings. Oz is a society flirting with fascism, etc. Elphaba is never the villain of the story and she's an entirely different character than the original book's Wicked Witch of the West.

other than that I agree though, there's nothing innovative about the "same plot again from the perspective of the villain" thing anymore as it's used so often. And especially children's stories villains should just be villains, the end. Those stories aren't meant for big moral questions, there's good and there's evil and good defeats evil, the end.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, KatWay said:

I don't remember the book that well, but isn't Wicked more of an example of using an existing idea to build a completely new story? It doesn't really add a tragic backstory to an existing character and goes, see this is why she murders everyone, but rather changes the entire setting of the story where the authorities are actually the bad guys and make her into this villain to have someone to blame. In the musical she didn't actually do the things she's accused of, she's a scapegoat for the government's evil doings. Oz is a society flirting with fascism, etc. Elphaba is never the villain of the story and she's an entirely different character than the original book's Wicked Witch of the West.

other than that I agree though, there's nothing innovative about the "same plot again from the perspective of the villain" thing anymore as it's used so often. And especially children's stories villains should just be villains, the end. Those stories aren't meant for big moral questions, there's good and there's evil and good defeats evil, the end.

That's a fair point. I obviously misunderstood the story. Who knows who or what started this noxious trend. In any case, I hope it ends really, really, really soon.

 

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

I love Return of the Jedi watching the Rebel Alliance defeating the Empire, I love watching the Ewoks helping, and Vader throwing Palpatine into the reactor core. It was sad when Anakin died. But it also worked. He couldn't really come back with Luke after everything he did. He'd end up locked up for the rest of his life or executed. Having him die makes more sense and yes Luke is sad. And its a sad scene. But then its over.  I loved watching everyone celebrating at the end. Happy, Han and Leia are together, Luke and Leia are together, the fireworks and different planets celebrating, Luke burning away the last of Vader. It feels like its all over.  

Bingo. That's exactly why I love Return of the Jedi, because it's such a great finish to everyone's story (though nowadays writers wet their pants at the very idea of finality).

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, KatWay said:

I don't remember the book that well, but isn't Wicked more of an example of using an existing idea to build a completely new story? It doesn't really add a tragic backstory to an existing character and goes, see this is why she murders everyone, but rather changes the entire setting of the story where the authorities are actually the bad guys and make her into this villain to have someone to blame. In the musical she didn't actually do the things she's accused of, she's a scapegoat for the government's evil doings. Oz is a society flirting with fascism, etc. Elphaba is never the villain of the story and she's an entirely different character than the original book's Wicked Witch of the West.

other than that I agree though, there's nothing innovative about the "same plot again from the perspective of the villain" thing anymore as it's used so often. And especially children's stories villains should just be villains, the end. Those stories aren't meant for big moral questions, there's good and there's evil and good defeats evil, the end.

But villians are often the most interesting characters.  Since Candyman is being remade and it is an old plot I don’t really consider it spoilers.  The  majority of the first two movies (the third ruined the plot to a large part but only kinda) were about what made a monster.  And the storyline was downright tragic but it never took back the fact that a ghost was killing people and basically framing others just to keep them close.  

 

You can be both a victim and a monster 

Edited by Chaos Theory
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

Now that it's Christmas season and they're showing it, I have to say that I absolutely hate Love, Actually.

Huh.  I thought the unpopular opinion was mine -- I actually love that movie. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Huh.  I thought the unpopular opinion was mine -- I actually love that movie. 

Yeah, me too.  Funny, but earlier today, I was literally thinking about posting this: "I still love Love Actually, in spite of it's flaws". 

Awards season is starting again, so hopefully enough time has passed for me to post this one:  I hated Call Me By Your Name.  It took every ounce of control I had not to walk out. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 11:41 AM, Chaos Theory said:

But villians are often the most interesting characters.  Since Candyman is being remade and it is an old plot I don’t really consider it spoilers.  The  majority of the first two movies (the third ruined the plot to a large part but only kinda) were about what made a monster.  And the storyline was downright tragic but it never took back the fact that a ghost was killing people and basically framing others just to keep them close.  

 

You can be both a victim and a monster 

 

Spoiler

A great example is Kevin Wendell Crumb in "Glass".

He's literally a monster-but it's one of his alters that's a monster, not Kevin himself. I felt sorry for Kevin. I even felt sorry for the beast at the end-" You are different from the rest. Your heart is PURE. The broken are the more evolved". I mean, I CRIED at a movie with a man seeing a girl's physical scars where she's cut herself-and THAT is what influences him not to kill her. Kevin, unless he is ever completely free of all the alters, belongs in a mental ward for the rest of his life because he's violent and dangerous. If he's out, he'll kill again. And yet, you know the reason for his alters is that his mother was abusive in every way you can be abusive (except sexually, and she was probably that, too).  And yes, I felt sorry for Kevin because of that. Doesn't mean I want to see him free, hurting people.

You can feel sorry for someone and hate what they do and know it's not right and they need to pay the price for it. And weep that a life is wasted. It is not all inclusive. You don't have to feel just one way about a character.  Feeling sympathy, even vehemently believing they are a victim themselves, does not mean you are saying what they did was okay or that they shouldn't have to answer for it. People should have to answer for their crimes.

And heroes should have to answer for being boring tools, but that's a rant for another time.

Edited by IWantCandy71
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't find Jason Momoa the least bit attractive. Nope, not at all. I hate his scraggly beard, and I don't even think his body is all that great. It's one thing to be a little unkempt, it's another thing to have the fashion sense and grooming of a homeless person (seriously, Momoa looks like he reeks to high heaven).

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

There are times when I think he's hot and other times not so much, but from everything I've read about him,  his personality makes him really attractive to me.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I forgot to mention this little detail that also makes him unattractive to me...

Oh, ouch.  Yep, there's strike one.  He does have a childish side.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/29/2018 at 12:41 PM, Chaos Theory said:

But villains are often the most interesting characters.  

 

Which leads to another important UO:

I can understand why some actors appreciate trying to bring life to so-called "good" characters: Going over the top to play a villain is easy. It's much harder to keep a "good" character interesting without sacrificing their basic goodness or crossing the line into "boring" (and frankly, a villain can become old hat enough in their tricks to devolve into a boring character as well). That's why I think it's so cool that while every other actress in Hollywood was dying for the chance to play Scarlett, Olivia de Havilland, from day one, was only interested in playing Melanie. 

...Of course, I also love my share of anti-heroes/heroines--my favorite daytime soap character was One Life to Live's Gabrielle Medina, after all--so I'm certainly not always consistent on this topic. 

Edited by UYI
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

"Sound of Music" is one of my favorite movies (primarily because of Julie Andrews), but I kind of can't stand Christopher Plummer as the Captain. I remember reading years ago that he hated the movie, calling it the "Sound of Mucus" (although his view mellowed in later years). I hate when actors disrespect the roles they agreed to take. Also, I don't think he's very good in the movie, and when he breaks down at the concert, it makes me think less of the character. 

I also hate the "Something Good" number, because nothing they told us about Maria's past would lead us to believe she had a miserable childhood or was "wicked." The Captain, on the other hand, fought for Austria-Hungary in WWI -- he was a bad guy.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, UYI said:

Which leads to another important UO:

I can understand why some actors appreciate trying to bring life to so-called "good" characters: Going over the top to play a villain is easy. It's much harder to keep a "good" character interesting without sacrificing their basic goodness or crossing the line into "boring" (and frankly, a villain can become old hat enough in their tricks to devolve into a boring character as well). That's why I think it's so cool that while every other actress in Hollywood was dying for the chance to play Scarlett, Olivia de Havilland, from day one, was only interested in playing Melanie. 

...Of course, I also love my share of anti-heroes/heroines--my favorite daytime soap character was One Life to Live's Gabrielle Medina, after all--so I'm certainly not always consistent on this topic. 

Well said, UYI. I've always admired Olivia de Havilland for preferring playing good girls to bad girls. Speaking of de Havilland, as someone on TWoP pointed out, The Adventures of Robin Hood is that rare treat where the heroes are just as fun to watch as the villains. I'd like to add that, in The Court Jester, the heroic Maid Jean is way more fun than the villainous Princess Gwendolyn. I don't think the whole "villains are more fun/interesting than the heroes" is always true, and it also shouldn't mean "the villains are interesting, the heroes are not" (which is the main reason I stopped watching Gotham).

I'm aware that I expressed myself poorly earlier, because there are plenty of antiheroes and villains that I happen to love watching. My favorite Nicole Kidman performance? To Die For. Suzanne Stone-Moretto is a moral void of a human being who you love to hate. Ursula from The Little Mermaid is not only one of Disney's best villains, IMO, but an improvement over Hans Christian Anderson's original, because her motivation makes sense, as does taking Ariel's voice (in the original, I swear she's doing it just to be a jerk). I didn't much care for the 2004 adaptation of Vanity Fair because I thought they made Becky Sharp too nice (which is a shame, because Reese Witherspoon could so play devilish Becky). The leads in Trouble in Paradise, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, and Chicago are borderline sociopaths, but the stories know they're sociopaths, so it's more fun watching them. 

I enjoy watching these characters because the screenplay doesn't bombard me with their backstories, or demand I sympathize with them. I might empathize with their motivations, but I'm not asked to shed tears over them. Real life assholes are no fun; fictional assholes, on the other hand, can be a blast.

But that's just my take on it, YMMV...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:

"Sound of Music" is one of my favorite movies (primarily because of Julie Andrews), but I kind of can't stand Christopher Plummer as the Captain. I remember reading years ago that he hated the movie, calling it the "Sound of Mucus" (although his view mellowed in later years). I hate when actors disrespect the roles they agreed to take. Also, I don't think he's very good in the movie, and when he breaks down at the concert, it makes me think less of the character. 

I also hate the "Something Good" number, because nothing they told us about Maria's past would lead us to believe she had a miserable childhood or was "wicked." The Captain, on the other hand, fought for Austria-Hungary in WWI -- he was a bad guy.

I'm shallow, I just love Christopher Plummer in that part because he was so damned dreamy back in the day. Oh, and he can act too... ;)

I love "Something Good", but I get why you don't. The real Maria von Trapp was actually way more complex and hot-tempered than she's portrayed in The Sound of Music, so it wouldn't surprise me if she was a bit of a hellion growing up. 

Can't argue with you on the Cap, though. Adaptations, amirite?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

The real Maria von Trapp was actually way more complex and hot-tempered than she's portrayed in The Sound of Music, so it wouldn't surprise me if she was a bit of a hellion growing up. 

I grew up in Vermont and my dad worked for the Border Patrol.  She was a hellion her whole life.  No one liked seeing her approach the border returning from a visit to Canada.

Having said that, I like The Sound of Music right up until the marriage.  After that, I get a little bored.  I do love most of the soundtrack, though, except My Favorite Things.  Watching it in the movie is slightly better than hearing it on the radio, though, because the playfulness of the actors makes it a bit more fun.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I had something I wanted to add from my good characters vs. evil characters post from above, but rather than edit my other post, I'll place it here, because it counts as a UO too:

I would argue that while I'm sure it can be fun to play obvious, over the top villains, the most interesting villains to see are probably the ones who AREN'T over the top in their villainy, the ones where at first you question if they are even villains at all--the "bitch in sheep's clothing" type of villain, if you will. They are the ones who are often the scariest, because they DON'T yell or do something so obviously evil in front of other people, but are gradually revealed to be awful people over time. And if they DO become over the top, it's only later on, as things begin to turn against them and they stop getting their way--and, if they're REALLY evil, sometimes not even then. THAT's a villain I can find fascinating (if draining to watch, depending on how far they go). 

I think it's especially interesting when it's applied to characters who are seen as failures as heroes or heroines (whether it's due to the actor or the writer)--something where they unintentionally come across as selfish people, and you think, "Wow, this character would be MUCH better if the people behind this movie were aware of how awful this character really is." 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I could write a dissertation on why I don't think Nurse Ratched is a true villain.  (at least until the very, very end of the movie.)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

On 11/28/2018 at 5:33 AM, Wiendish Fitch said:

After griping about the live-action Grinch elsewhere, this reminds me...

I know it's wrong, but I'm going to go ahead scapegoat Wicked (both the novel and the musical) for starting the trend of "tragic villain backstory that automatically makes them sympathetic, justifies their actions, and it's the heroes who are wrong blah-blah-blah". Maybe Wicked wasn't the first to do this, but it seems to be the most recent (and still relevant) example, and I'm tired of it.

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but maybe I don't want to sympathize with the villain! Maybe I want either indulge my righteous side by booing and hissing at them, or indulge my mischievous side by enjoying their villainy without thinking about their mommy/daddy/society/whatever issues!

IMO, the Grinch didn't need any kind of backstory. Making Gaston a war veteran actually made him less sympathetic (and is insulting to real veterans). Most Star Wars fans wish they had never learned about Darth Vader's past. Magneto being a Holocaust survivor doesn't change what a monstrous hypocrite he is.

Mind you, I'm not saying good and/or enjoyable stories can't spring from this, but in the remakes/franchise glut of late, it's being used as a crutch, and it's getting really, really, really tiresome to me.

And this is the main reasoy I  hate Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween; he made of force of natural into something banal.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 5:40 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

I don't find Jason Momoa the least bit attractive. Nope, not at all. I hate his scraggly beard, and I don't even think his body is all that great. It's one thing to be a little unkempt, it's another thing to have the fashion sense and grooming of a homeless person (seriously, Momoa looks like he reeks to high heaven).

I just sat through Aquaman because family members wanted to see it. Now, I liked JM in that Sundance series (can't remember the name of it right now). He had great chemistry with the other male lead. But yes he looks dirty and unkempt. Not sexy at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

With the exception of Logan, I think all of the X Men movies are mediocre at best and their reputation rests on "Hey, we got these acclaimed European actors to play Xavier and Magneto!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/27/2018 at 10:07 PM, xaxat said:

With the exception of Logan, I think all of the X Men movies are mediocre at best and their reputation rests on "Hey, we got these acclaimed European actors to play Xavier and Magneto!"

 

I am the opposite because I hate Wolverine and despise the worship of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. He is probably going to be one of the few characters that won't be recasted. I refuse to watch any movie that has him front and center--so that rules out most of X-Men series. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I will not be disappointed at all if Black Panther does not get a nomination for Best Picture at the Oscars. I don't hate the movie, I think it's as good as any other Marvel movie. Therefore if they can't get a nomination for Best Picture why would it be shocking that Black Panther doesn't. I just don't see what makes Black Panther any better or award worthy than any of the other MCU movies.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

I will not be disappointed at all if Black Panther does not get a nomination for Best Picture at the Oscars. I don't hate the movie, I think it's as good as any other Marvel movie. Therefore if they can't get a nomination for Best Picture why would it be shocking that Black Panther doesn't. I just don't see what makes Black Panther any better or award worthy than any of the other MCU movies.

Ditto. I mean I really liked the movie and even bought the DVD, but outside of the cultural importance of the movie and that it is visually stunning,it's basically just a superhero movie. It holds its own in that universe but not really best picture (unless the Academy wants to start considering re-watchability as a factor, but that'll never happen).

 

I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't know WTF Birdbox is. I mean I know now, after looking it up on Wikipedia, but seeing as I don't have Netflix anymore (and have zero interest it getting it again, another UO) I missed all the hubbub. And honestly, based on the description, it sounds kind of stupid. I like Sandra Bullock but the movie sounds really dumb.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

I will not be disappointed at all if Black Panther does not get a nomination for Best Picture at the Oscars. I don't hate the movie, I think it's as good as any other Marvel movie. Therefore if they can't get a nomination for Best Picture why would it be shocking that Black Panther doesn't. I just don't see what makes Black Panther any better or award worthy than any of the other MCU movies.

 

6 hours ago, callie lee 29 said:

Ditto. I mean I really liked the movie and even bought the DVD, but outside of the cultural importance of the movie and that it is visually stunning,it's basically just a superhero movie. It holds its own in that universe but not really best picture (unless the Academy wants to start considering re-watchability as a factor, but that'll never happen).

 

Well there it is right there. It is not so much that a regular comics movie being among the chosen few, it is that the Black cast big crossover movie is among the chosen few. And both special interest fan bases should be able to recognize that the " Oscar's so white" saying is why the Black Panther movie is getting awards buzz not seen in the comics movie genre since Heath Ledger's Joker performance in The Dark Knight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Raja said:

 

Well there it is right there. It is not so much that a regular comics movie being among the chosen few, it is that the Black cast big crossover movie is among the chosen few. And both special interest fan bases should be able to recognize that the " Oscar's so white" saying is why the Black Panther movie is getting awards buzz not seen in the comics movie genre since Heath Ledger's Joker performance in The Dark Knight.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I didn't think that the Black Panther script was anything more than the generic superhero script and I think script and writing have a lot to say in Best Picture nominations. For what it's worth I though Heath Ledger as the Joker was annoying and way over the top, but that's certainly an UO (and I also find the Joker annoying in general).

 

Personally, I think that re-watchability should be a major factor in Best Picture nominations. The Academy doesn't seem to care much for the pure enjoyment that a movie can give and they don't seem overly willing to recognize it as an important factor in a movies consideration.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size