Unpopular Opinions

[Spartan Girl]

Jesus Christ, I can't even.....

The only people that would seriously consider Syndrome as the hero of The Incredibles are probably whiny petulant asshole toxic fanboys just like him. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Spartan Girl

[kiddo82]

58 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Jesus Christ, I can't even.....

The only people that would seriously consider Syndrome as the hero of The Incredibles are probably whiny petulant asshole toxic fanboys just like him. 

Exactly.  That video pretty much exonerates every toxic fan boy of awful behavior because he got his feelings hurt.   There is so much I could refute in that essay I don't know where to begin.   And I am by no means a Magneto or Killmonger apologist but comparing Syndrome's trauma to theirs is incredibly tone deaf.

Edited September 8, 2019 by kiddo82

[andromeda331]

16 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

The CW's Supergirl is the furthest thing from a perfect show, but there is a moment from last season that is, IMO, damned near perfect. J'onn (aka the Martian Manhunter), calls out bloodthirsty terrorist Manchster Black (whose fiancee was murdered by people associated with the season's Big Bad) on his crap by snarling,

"I think you're glad that Fiona's gone! With her out of the way, it gives you an excuse to DO ALL THIS!!"

Exactly. That is why I hate the trend of villain apologia. Just let 'em be evil. I don't care about their mom issues, dad issues, that their sibling got 10 hugs a day and they only got 9, the prejudice they endured, the fact that they always got picked last for dodgeball, whatever.

I. Don't. Care. 

We all have choices, and if you choose wrong and hurt innocent people? Well, sorry not sorry, my sympathy goes out the window. Everyone doesn't need a backstory, and I sometimes think backstories make villains less sympathetic and interesting, not more. 

Just let the Wicked Witch be wicked, she was more fun that way.

Just let Maleficent be a petty sociopath, we don't need to know why.

Just let Gaston be a popular, entitled asshole jock who gets away with stuff, because making him a war veteran is not only weird and muddled, but it's rather insulting to real veterans.

Just let the Grinch be some dude who hates Christmas; make him in the wrong, not the Whos (seriously, why would you make this a "both sides" narrative?!).

Just let the Phantom of the Opera be some psycho who ends up alone, don't write some crappy, lurid fanfic sequel that rewards and justifies his criminal behavior (too late in Andrew Lloyd Webber's case).

Yes! I am so sick of the villain apologia, the villain's poor crappy, sad, terrible childhood "made" them become villains or was so bad they had no choice but to be a villain. Its bull crap. Lots of people have crappy horrible childhoods they don't all become psychos. And I really don't care because of all the villain, evil stuff their doing. Slaughter a bunch of people because of Daddy issues, murder a bunch of women because Mommy was mean, do a bunch of psycho stuff. You know who also had it really bad? The victims in the story killed or held hostage by a psych. Generally the Hero has it bad Batman's parents were murdered when he was kid he was angry about it but ends up choosing instead to take on bad guys and bring them to justice.  Maleficent flipped out and cursed Aurora because she wasn't invited to a Christening. Don't need to know anymore then that.  Most villains we really don't need to know anything else. Maleficent is a great villain, one of the best Disney Villains because she was so great and so bad. Hannibel Lector is creepy enough, do really need to know his backstory?  Can't we just have villains be villains? Their whole point is being a villain doing bad/evil/psycho things that needs to be stopped and defeated. If you want to make a movie about a villain then show them being them a villain. 

[BlackberryJam]

My unpopular movie opinion is that I am wholly uninterested in films based on comic books, cartoons or anything like that. I don’t know DC from Marvel from Men in Black and I only know there is a difference because I was subjected to others arguing over it at a family thing.

I have seen a few of the films which are ...all right. I mean, mildly amusing in a “I need something to watch while I’m getting over the flu” way. The story is always the same and hits the exact same beats. They are always volume control issues because the crashes and shooting have to be super loud but the heroes and villains will whisper their dialogue. I solve this with mute and closed captioning. And honestly, most time the dialogue isn’t necessary. “Oh, now is the time for hero to realize s/he needs thing to stop villain and it is very dangerous to get thing. Add in funny line.”

I don’t care what’s canon and what’s not. 

I get that there is a built in audience for these types of films, which is fine. But it’s not high art. The actors playing heroes are enjoying looking hot and hamming it up. The actors playing villains are going ugly in makeup and chewing scenery. I’m sure it’s a lot of fun for them.

But can I be assed to see any of these films in a theatre? Nah. 

[Annber03]

I've seen a few superhero movies-Batman, Batman Returns, and Batman Forever. The first two I saw for reasons that weren't tied to any interest in the superhero genre (I was interested in the musical aspect of the films), but I did wind up actually finding them rather enjoyable overall (Batman Returns in particular). And the last one I saw some of at a friend's place way back when I was a teenager, and I can't really remember much about it right now. 

Beyond that, though, yeah, the superhero/comic book genres aren't something I follow, either. In my case, a large part of why is because there's so much connectivity between the mediums much of the time, and different kinds of canons and stories and whatnot. It just sounds so overwhelming to try and keep track of, to the point where, if I ever were interested to sit down and delve into those things, I feel I'd need to set aside a lot of time for it all. Until then, the only ways I'm likely to see a superhero film are one of the two options mentioned above: somebody I like is involved, or I catch it at a friend's place. 

[scarynikki12]

9 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Hannibel Lector is creepy enough, do really need to know his backstory?

In Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon they have two characters (Hannibal in the former and Will in the latter) who make a point of saying that the serial killers were “not born a monster but made one through years of abuse”. In those two movies I always took that to mean that Hannibal was the rare one who was born the monster (being the only other serial killer in those movies) but that got changed and he ended up lumped in with the rest of the “please excuse my crimes because I had it bad as a kid” crowd. It’s a shame because Hannibal was among the best because there wasn’t a reason he hunted and ate people. 

That doesn’t mean I’m wholly against learning a backstory but I want these movies to make it clear that this isn’t an excuse. Probably the only effective ways to do this is to either show us a backstory that isn’t strong enough to justify the murder and mayhem (eg, the character turns villain because they wanted a red bicycle but got a blue one) or the Rowling approach where the backstories of the hero and villain are similar so the audience can’t try and hand wave away because there’s an example right there of someone making better choices. 

[Blergh]

9 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Yes! I am so sick of the villain apologia, the villain's poor crappy, sad, terrible childhood "made" them become villains or was so bad they had no choice but to be a villain. Its bull crap. Lots of people have crappy horrible childhoods they don't all become psychos. And I really don't care because of all the villain, evil stuff their doing. Slaughter a bunch of people because of Daddy issues, murder a bunch of women because Mommy was mean, do a bunch of psycho stuff. You know who also had it really bad? The victims in the story killed or held hostage by a psych.   Maleficent flipped out and cursed Aurora because she wasn't invited to a Christening. Don't need to know anymore then that.  Most villains we really don't need to know anything else. Maleficent is a great villain, one of the best Disney Villains because she was so great and so bad. 

I agree! I always thought it was likely due to Miss Jolie's OWN ego (and via using her clout as a producer) that she couldn't accept playing someone who was a villain for no good reason that she bowlderized the story by

Spoiler

making Aurora's father a rotten, cheating scumbag that was supposed to the source of ALL the woes in their universe while Maleficent herself was a pure victim who only via a slip of the tongue happened to curse the baby Aurora (and didn't bother to try to justify why Aurora's MOTHER deserved to suffer from Maleficent's deviousness 'self-defense'). Talk about blaming the victims there (to say nothing of their baby daughter)! 

At least Glenn Close realized it would be more fun to play  Cruella De Vil being so rotten because she was the devil and for no other reason rather than concoct a  bunch of angsty excuses for her! 

[Mabinogia]

14 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Hannibel Lector is creepy enough, do really need to know his backstory? 

My UO is that I did not find Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs creepy, scary, terrifying or anything but laughable. It might be because I saw it so much later than others so my expectation was too high, but he just came across as trying way too hard to me. 

[Shannon L.]

This probably isn't an unpopular opinion on these boards, but here it goes:

I loved A Star is Born, but couldn't quite understand how Lady Gaga was, in the beginning, considered a front runner to win everything, including the Oscar. At the time, I thought that she was worthy of a nomination, but not really a win.  I haven't seen it in a while, but I do have the soundtrack on my phone.  Mixed in with the songs, are little bits of dialogue from the movie and now whenever one of those come up and I hear Gaga, she's not very good at all.  I don't even get the nomination now. 

[Mabinogia]

25 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Mixed in with the songs, are little bits of dialogue from the movie and now whenever one of those come up and I hear Gaga, she's not very good at all.  I don't even get the nomination now. 

I love Lady Gaga as a personality, I think she has a tremendous voice, but she cannot act. She seems very flat to me when she acts so I don't get the nomination either. I think it was more of a PR/hype thing than based on her actual acting. 

[kiddo82]

1 hour ago, Shannon L. said:

This probably isn't an unpopular opinion on these boards, but here it goes:

I loved A Star is Born, but couldn't quite understand how Lady Gaga was, in the beginning, considered a front runner to win everything, including the Oscar. At the time, I thought that she was worthy of a nomination, but not really a win.  I haven't seen it in a while, but I do have the soundtrack on my phone.  Mixed in with the songs, are little bits of dialogue from the movie and now whenever one of those come up and I hear Gaga, she's not very good at all.  I don't even get the nomination now. 

Agree.  I thought she was fine and don't begrudge her the nomination (even if I think Emily Blunt's Mary Poppins was robbed.  And Rosamund Pike.) but the whole Gaga as the front runner angle baffled me.  I think a lot of it was name recognition plus the fact that for the first time she was doing something as "Stephanie" and not "Gaga."  We love transformations but in this case it was her lack of transformation that was intriguing.  However, there was no way I actually saw her winning.

[Danny Franks]

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 2:21 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

The CW's Supergirl is the furthest thing from a perfect show, but there is a moment from last season that is, IMO, damned near perfect. J'onn (aka the Martian Manhunter), calls out bloodthirsty terrorist Manchster Black (whose fiancee was murdered by people associated with the season's Big Bad) on his crap by snarling,

"I think you're glad that Fiona's gone! With her out of the way, it gives you an excuse to DO ALL THIS!!"

Exactly. That is why I hate the trend of villain apologia. Just let 'em be evil. I don't care about their mom issues, dad issues, that their sibling got 10 hugs a day and they only got 9, the prejudice they endured, the fact that they always got picked last for dodgeball, whatever.

I. Don't. Care. 

We all have choices, and if you choose wrong and hurt innocent people? Well, sorry not sorry, my sympathy goes out the window. Everyone doesn't need a backstory, and I sometimes think backstories make villains less sympathetic and interesting, not more. 

Just let the Wicked Witch be wicked, she was more fun that way.

Just let Maleficent be a petty sociopath, we don't need to know why.

Just let Gaston be a popular, entitled asshole jock who gets away with stuff, because making him a war veteran is not only weird and muddled, but it's rather insulting to real veterans.

Just let the Grinch be some dude who hates Christmas; make him in the wrong, not the Whos (seriously, why would you make this a "both sides" narrative?!).

Just let the Phantom of the Opera be some psycho who ends up alone, don't write some crappy, lurid fanfic sequel that rewards and justifies his criminal behavior (too late in Andrew Lloyd Webber's case).

In the words of Jake Peralta, "cool motive. Still murder." One of the best lines in Brooklyn Nine-Nine, simply because it debunks all the villain apologies and excuses and 'I only did this because I'm really a huge woobie who just needs to be loved!" bullshit.

I think part of it is filmmakers and writers wanting to explore the psyche of these characters, and navel-gaze about how 'couldn't we all be like this, given the right circumstances?' (the answer is no), and part of it is them being worried that their characters will be called out as one-dimensional or overly simple. It doesn't help that there are so many edgy people who love to loudly proclaim how much they like, and how much they are like, various evil, asshole characters.

The Joker, as played by Phoenix, will be the next one that people will be quoting online and dressing up as and proclaiming to be the character they look up to. It's not healthy.

[Annber03]

30 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

part of it is them being worried that their characters will be called out as one-dimensional or overly simple.

The funny thing is that back in the earlier days of cinema, when there were a lot more restrictions on and concerns about villains in movies due to studios and moral guardian types and such wanting to make sure they got their comeuppance so that "good would always win out" and all that, the filmmakers still didn't feel the need to apologize for making their villains so unabashedly evil, or try and give them some weepy backstory, or whatever. They just put them on screen, let them do their evil deeds, and left it at that. Even the few attempts to try and explain their behavior, like with Norman at the end of Psycho, didn't diminish or take away from the fact that these people were terrifying, and no matter their reasons, if they had any at all, they were always going to be terrifying. 

[andromeda331]

That's the part I really don't understand. Why do they keep feeling the need to excuse or give a reason for the villain's action? Why can't they just show the villain doing their evil, villain stuff? 

[kiddo82]

9 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I think part of it is filmmakers and writers wanting to explore the psyche of these characters, and navel-gaze about how 'couldn't we all be like this, given the right circumstances?' (the answer is no), and part of it is them being worried that their characters will be called out as one-dimensional or overly simple.

This.  Not sure when this trend started but there seems to be a prevailing belief these days that if a villain's motives aren't nuanced or complex, then they aren't a good character.  I feel like the pendulum has swung so far away from the "Bond villain/world domination" motive that now every character has to have some personal reason or we have to empathize with them in some way.   The funny thing though, is that when the pendulum swings, what was once innovative and subversive, now becomes the lazy way.  It's more commonplace today to write a villain with some tragic backstory than it is to create an interesting character with absolutely no redeeming qualities (Nicholson's Joker, Ledger's Joker, Hans Landa, the captain from Pan's Labyrinth, and to a lesser extent Ulysses Klaue.  Klaue is a low key great secondary villain)  Some characters do manage to bridge that gap (Killmonger in Black Panther, Toomes in Homecoming) but it in no way justifies their actions.  

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I feel like the pendulum has swung so far away from the "Bond villain/world domination" motive that now every character has to have some personal reason or we have to empathize with them in some way. 

The other problem is that with some of those stories, it's clear the writers are trying to make people see their villain as sympathetic, whether they want to or not. Good writing doesn't tell you how to feel about a character, be they good or bad. They let the character do what they do and the audience can decide for themselves how to feel about them. 

[Mabinogia]

3 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Good writing doesn't tell you how to feel about a character, be they good or bad. They let the character do what they do and the audience can decide for themselves how to feel about them. 

Sadly there is a lack of good writing these days. 

If you take, say, Maleficent. I actually have enough brain cells to rub together that I created all the backstory that was needed. Maleficent was pissed off at not being invited to what was probably the party of the century for that kingdom and she took it out on an infant who couldn't have invited her if she wanted to because she was an INFANT! So, Mal, doesn't like being left out, probably feels like an outsider/outcast, has anger issues, has twisted sense of revenge and doesn't care who gets hurt in the process no matter how innocent they are. That was all I needed to know. 

Nothing about the Jolie movie made me sympathetic towards her. If anything it made me less sympathetic because it was basically the difference between a child who does something terrible, gets caught and says "yeah, I did that, sorry" and a child who does something terrible, gets caught and rather than apologize tries to blame it on someone else or make excuses. 

The best villains own their shit. The most evil characters don't apologize for being evil. That is what makes them terrifying. 

The single worst ending to a TV show story arch for me was Sherlock and the end of the Euros storyline. Basically... 

Spoiler

horrible, murderous little sister Euros who killed a child when she was a child and spent most of her life locked up oh, burned the family house down too, and as an adult stalked her brother just needed a fucking hug from him. WTF!?!??!

I was so enraged by the storyline I ended up writing my own version and can't watch any scene's/episodes that deal with it. Also, Euros was far too omnipotent which also ruined the character. 

[methodwriter85]

On 9/8/2019 at 9:15 PM, kiddo82 said:

Agree.  I thought she was fine and don't begrudge her the nomination (even if I think Emily Blunt's Mary Poppins was robbed.  And Rosamund Pike.) but the whole Gaga as the front runner angle baffled me.  I think a lot of it was name recognition plus the fact that for the first time she was doing something as "Stephanie" and not "Gaga."  We love transformations but in this case it was her lack of transformation that was intriguing.  However, there was no way I actually saw her winning.

The problem is that they decided to make Jackson Maine the star of the story. Which is fine, but I never really felt like I got a good handle of who Allie was aside from her role as Jackson's put-upon wife.

[Ambrosefolly]

Listen, though I haven't seen them, I am sure that the It movies are better done than the It miniseries (and at 80 million budget for each of the movies, I should sure hope so) but the It miniseries will always have a special place in my heart. Considering the huge amount of restraints the miniseries had (it would only have a budget of 20 million in todays dollars, no swearing, no real sexuality, no obvious gore, the pool of actors were from TV/B Level movie actors) I thought it did a wonderful job. Most of all, it proved that it was possible to adapt that book into film. When I balked at them adapting the book into a pair of movies, I had to remind myself that it was made (uh hum) 27 years ago for network tv. Consider it, people are still make comparisons between the two of them actively, so the miniseries did a few things right. What I find hilarious is that people have the same complaints about lack of chem between adult versions of Losers in both versions, makes me think that that is how they were directed to act. While Bill Skarsgård did a much better job as Pennywise than I thought he would, Tim Curry having to elicit fear from the audience without the benefit of onscreen violence is truly special. And Georgie's picture winking at Bill after his funeral will always freak me out.

While I haven't seen all of the movie, I have seen a few clips and I thought the miniseries did the scene with Beverly and the old lady at her old apartment better than the movie. As someone on youtube pointed out, horror movies back in the day would have the scenes full of life with something being slightly off, but in the It Chapter 2, you knew that there was something creepy about the old lady right from the jump and

Spoiler

the old lady turning into a tall monstrous naked woman with 3 months looked as fake when the old lady turned into Bev's dad in the miniseries, maybe even less real, but at least with the miniseries it actually dealt with a fear that Bev would still have, which is that of her father. The lady was more freaky than scary; it seemed like I was watching a manifestation of  Andrés Muschietti signature than anything having to do with Beverly as a character. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Ambrosefolly

[topanga]

On 9/8/2019 at 5:33 PM, Mabinogia said:

My UO is that I did not find Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs creepy, scary, terrifying or anything but laughable. It might be because I saw it so much later than others so my expectation was too high, but he just came across as trying way too hard to me. 

I can see that, I saw this in the theater when it first came out. Before the fanfare, before the Oscars (yes, I'm old. LOL). And because I had zero expectations, Anthony Hopkins and his portrayal of Hannibal Lector blew me away. And creeped me out. 

There have also been several evil criminals like Lector in movies, so that's taken away the novelty the character. Hopkins himself has played knockoff Hannibal Lectors in the years sence the movie. 

On 9/8/2019 at 9:49 AM, BlackberryJam said:

My unpopular movie opinion is that I am wholly uninterested in films based on comic books, cartoons or anything like that.

I'm right there with you--and there are actually quite a few of us. I know there must be something appealing about these movies since they do so well at the box office. I've just never found them emotionally compelling and haven't gotten invested in any of the heroes or villains. 

And I like action as much as the next guy (well, maybe a little less), but if I'm not into the story and don't feel anything for any of the characters, the action doesn't impress me at all. 

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

Regarding Maleficent, it’s important to remember that Sleeping Beauty was based on multiple old fairy tales, and in medieval Europe, the Fair Folk were treated as a legitimate threat, and there were codified rules of behavior for interacting with them. Maleficent was based on an archetype of a powerful dark fairy, and being disrespectful to a fairy less powerful and more benevolent than her would’ve been courting disaster. From her perspective she was the injured party and reacted according to the social and ethical standards of her society. Seeing that Blue and Orange perspective would’ve been far more fascinating than the dull, bad guy is really a good guy drivel that we got. 

[Dandesun]

15 hours ago, ZuluQueenOfDwarves said:

Regarding Maleficent, it’s important to remember that Sleeping Beauty was based on multiple old fairy tales, and in medieval Europe, the Fair Folk were treated as a legitimate threat, and there were codified rules of behavior for interacting with them. Maleficent was based on an archetype of a powerful dark fairy, and being disrespectful to a fairy less powerful and more benevolent than her would’ve been courting disaster. From her perspective she was the injured party and reacted according to the social and ethical standards of her society. Seeing that Blue and Orange perspective would’ve been far more fascinating than the dull, bad guy is really a good guy drivel that we got. 

And that's what she already was... the insulted Unseelie Fae who came by to exercise her dark will because she hadn't been invited to the christening. That's ALL I ever needed. Terry Pratchett's 'Lords and Ladies' was a wonderful look at humans and the fae/elves. "Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder. Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels. Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies. Elves are glamorous. They project glamour. Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment. Elves are terrific. They beget terror. ... No one ever said elves are nice."

I neither needed nor wanted a 'sympathetic' back story for Maleficent. It wasn't necessary. I don't need a sympathetic back story for the Evil Queen in 'Snow White' either. It's simple: VANITY. Boom. Many people fall victim to it. Some take it to an extreme.

And I'm not saying that a sympathetic and interesting back story for a villain is worthless. I loved it when they changed Magneto's backstory in the X-Men comics. It added pathos and was more than just 'mwah ha haaaa! I will rule the world!' It brought in an element of 'I must become what I have most hated in order to protect my people' and it gave him some room to move back and forth across the villain/anti-hero line. PLUS it allowed Xavier to get called out for being a raging douche when he needed to. (Not often enough but still.)

Not all back stories are bad... they've just gone to the well too many times and, yeah, it comes down to 'cool motive, still murder' a lot.

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

If they’re going to make villains the protagonists, they should keep them as villains. Tony Soprano could be sympathetic, but he was still a villain. Same with Walter White. 

[proserpina65]

On ‎09‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 8:27 AM, Crs97 said:

The other day I read an article that called Maleficent a “beloved Disney character” and found myself saying aloud, “What the hell?!?”  

It's possible to think that an evil character was quite entertaining (I don't think Maleficent was, but the premise is valid) without calling them 'beloved'.  So I'm totally with your "what the hell?!".

[kitmerlot1213]

On 9/8/2019 at 7:16 PM, Shannon L. said:

This probably isn't an unpopular opinion on these boards, but here it goes:

I loved A Star is Born, but couldn't quite understand how Lady Gaga was, in the beginning, considered a front runner to win everything, including the Oscar. At the time, I thought that she was worthy of a nomination, but not really a win.  I haven't seen it in a while, but I do have the soundtrack on my phone.  Mixed in with the songs, are little bits of dialogue from the movie and now whenever one of those come up and I hear Gaga, she's not very good at all.  I don't even get the nomination now. 

On 9/8/2019 at 7:42 PM, Mabinogia said:

I love Lady Gaga as a personality, I think she has a tremendous voice, but she cannot act. She seems very flat to me when she acts so I don't get the nomination either. I think it was more of a PR/hype thing than based on her actual acting. 

The early Oscar buzz was all about A Star is Born and how wonderful Gaga and Cooper were but once better movies started being released and the closer we got to the Oscars, Gaga stopped being considered a front runner and rightly so--she was mediocre at best, especially in comparison to the other women nominated.

My newest unpopular opinion?  I think Once Upon a Time in Hollywood could have cut out all of the endless driving scenes, and the endless Western movie scenes and just focused on the Spahn Ranch/Manson Family scenes and the movie would have been much better and more entertaining.

[methodwriter85]

7 hours ago, kitmerlot1213 said:

My newest unpopular opinion?  I think Once Upon a Time in Hollywood could have cut out all of the endless driving scenes, and the endless Western movie scenes and just focused on the Spahn Ranch/Manson Family scenes and the movie would have been much better and more entertaining.

It could have, but it was clearly meant as self-indulgent and I kind of liked just hanging out with these characters.

[Ravenya003]

On 9/12/2019 at 12:49 PM, ZuluQueenOfDwarves said:

Regarding Maleficent, it’s important to remember that Sleeping Beauty was based on multiple old fairy tales, and in medieval Europe, the Fair Folk were treated as a legitimate threat, and there were codified rules of behavior for interacting with them. Maleficent was based on an archetype of a powerful dark fairy, and being disrespectful to a fairy less powerful and more benevolent than her would’ve been courting disaster. From her perspective she was the injured party and reacted according to the social and ethical standards of her society. Seeing that Blue and Orange perspective would’ve been far more fascinating than the dull, bad guy is really a good guy drivel that we got. 

And if you go further back, there are clearly roots in Greek mythology, specifically in Eris, the goddess of Strife, who threw the Golden Apple engraved with "for the fairest" into the gathering of goddesses, which kick-started a chain reaction that led straight to the Trojan War. Why'd she do it? Because she wasn't invited to a wedding. 

And honestly, villains who do things for petty reasons are somehow more horrifying than the ones with tragic backstories, because you can't understand them, nor win with them no matter what you do. That the Ancient Greeks had a handle on "some people are just assholes" while modern day writers are obsessed with everyone having a sad childhood is as tedious as it is depressing. 

Which is to say, I have negative-levels of interest in the forthcoming Joker movie.  

[NutMeg]

Well, as this is the unpopular opinion thread, let me say that based of the trailers I'm quite intrigued by the Joker. My interest has nothing to do with him being a part of the Batman universe. (Truth be told, while I really liked two Batman movies, one from Burton, one from Nolan, I'm quite remote from the whole background story, etc.). My interest in Joker is based on what I see as a compelling drama that to me seems interesting and played/directed with interesting insights. I would still root for Batman against the Joker in any instance, but that's not the point, because I don't even see this story as connected to the Batman universe, but more like a Carrie of sort, if you will.

Otherwise, I also wanted to answer a post about Nothing Hill (sorry I somehow lost the quote), saying it was neither romantic nor funny. It always felt to me as an attempt to replicate the charm of Four Weddings and a Funeral that unfortunately only kept the more pedestrian parts and neglected all of what made the OG such a delight.

[Crs97]

The most romantic moment of Notting Hill was when the woman in the wheelchair was sending them off to help Hugh’s character because she thought she would slow them down.  Her husband refused to leave her behind.  That was a gorgeous moment.  The rest of the movie did nothing for me.

[BlackberryJam]

Truly unpopular opinion, I saw the Batman film with Heath Ledger and found the entire thing mediocre and the Joker bits particularly annoying. So much over the top scenery chewing. Total yawner.

[Crs97]

I thought the Riddler was a better villain than the Joker.

[methodwriter85]

I completely skipped out on the Christian Bale Batman era. Just wasn't interested.

[festivus]

10 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I completely skipped out on the Christian Bale Batman era. Just wasn't interested.

I didn't but Christian Bale's presence is the reason why I haven't been interested in re-watching the movies. I really need to watch the 2nd again though because I love Heath Ledger. Oh and don't get me started on the 3rd one. I can't stand Tom Hardy. Will not watch Venom unless it becomes necessary for me to do so because of Sony keeping Spider-Man. Anne Hathaway would be the only reason to ever watch the 3rd Batman again and even that is not enough.

[coppersin]

15 hours ago, Crs97 said:

The most romantic moment of Notting Hill was when the woman in the wheelchair was sending them off to help Hugh’s character because she thought she would slow them down.  Her husband refused to leave her behind.  That was a gorgeous moment.  The rest of the movie did nothing for me.

For me it was when he carried her up the stairs after dinner. A beautiful everyday experience and them just gazing at each other.

I don't actually mind Hugh and Julia in that film, I just kept wishing we could get back to everyone else.

[GHScorpiosRule]

30 minutes ago, festivus said:

but Christian Bale's presence is the reason why I haven't been interested in re-watching the movies.

BLASPHEMY!!!! 😜😜 I kid! I kid! To each their own! For me, when I saw the trailer for Batman Begins--and mind you, all we saw was the cave and Bale's voiceover, ending with something about the biggest fear being him--I squealed like a tween. Why? Because in that one minute and with that last line, I saw the Dark Knight the way he's ALWAYS supposed to have been. And Nolan AND BALE, AND CAINE, AND FREEMAN, AND OLDMAN, did NOT disappoint. And of course THE DARK KNIGHT was just fucking-FANTABULOUS. But I think this is the unpopular opinion.

That all said, Nolan shouldn't have made Bale try to do a whatever Batman voice. The one he had in Begins was good enough. If he wanted more, he shoulda just dubbed in KevinFucking!Conroy's! voice!

Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT get me started on Hardy's "take" on Bane.

[Ravenya003]

I don't mind the presence of Ewoks in Return of the Jedi - in fact, I kinda love them. Yes, Wookies would have been a million times better (which was the original plan) but I love the idea of the Empire totally underestimating the "primitive" aliens species they thought they could so effortlessly subjugate, not to mention the idea of the Rebel Alliance calling on the natural world to combat Imperial science (they did something similar at the end of Star Wars Rebels, when the characters included giant bats/wolves on the planet of Lothal into their battle strategies). 

And yeah, I've heard the complaints that the Rebels took advantage of the Ewoks in a sort of "superior colonizers co-opt primitive savages to fight their battles" kind of way, but not only is that a bit of a stretch, but the film itself makes it VERY clear that the Ewoks are in this of their own volition after hearing C3-PO's dramatic retelling of the gang's adventures. That was such a great scene, and along with Leia's kindness towards Wicket, establishes why the Ewoks would chose to throw their lot in with the Rebels. 

Oh, and that moment when the two Ewoks get hit, and one gets up and nudges his friend as if to say "let's go!", only to realize that he's dead? Gets me every time. I'm a sap. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ravenya003

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, Ravenya003 said:

I don't mind the presence of Ewoks in Return of the Jedi - in fact, I kinda love them. Yes, Wookies would have been a million times better (which was the original plan) but I love the idea of the Empire totally underestimating the "primitive" aliens species they thought they could so effortlessly subjugate, not to mention the idea of the Rebel Alliance calling on the natural world to combat Imperial science (they did something similar at the end of Star Wars Rebels, when the characters included giant bats/wolves on the planet of Lothal into their battle strategies). 

And yeah, I've heard the complaints that the Rebels took advantage of the Ewoks in a sort of "superior colonizers co-opt primitive savages to fight their battles" kind of way, but not only is that a bit of a stretch, but the film itself makes it VERY clear that the Ewoks are in this of their own volition after hearing C3-PO's dramatic retelling of the gang's adventures. That was such a great scene, and along with Leia's kindness towards Wicket, establishes why the Ewoks would chose to throw their lot in with the Rebels. 

Oh, and that moment when the two Ewoks get hit, and one gets up and nudges his friend as if to say "let's go!", only to realize that he's dead? Gets me every time. I'm a sap. 

I love the Ewoks too. They agreed to join in a fight against an enemy that was so completely stronger then them in every way. They helped because Leia was kind to them and after hearing C3PO's stories. And they probably wanted the Empire off their moon. They did originally let the Rebels go in alone only helping by showing them the back way and distracting the guards. But when it became clear the Rebels needed help, they came to their rescue. I'm always a sucker for the smaller group or army up against a big foe and be able to defeat them. Its not completely uncommon in our history too. Watching them figure out how to take out the Walkers is awesome. Sure they missed at first but then cutting the two logs to smash into one. That worked. So were the logs. Chewie and the Ewok deciding to steal a Walker which really turn things around.

Edited September 17, 2019 by andromeda331

[Wiendish Fitch]

Show of hands: who wants the Ewoks to make a comeback in the latest Star Wars flick to aid our heroes in defeating Kylo Ren?

[GHScorpiosRule]

I've never thought that Jennifer Lopez was a particularly good actress. The only time I've ever liked her was in Selina. Her voice is too nasally and whiny sounding to me.

Hey. This is the Unpopular Opinion thread, right?

[Spartan Girl]

4 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Show of hands: who wants the Ewoks to make a comeback in the latest Star Wars flick to aid our heroes in defeating Kylo Ren?

[Crs97]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I've never thought that Jennifer Lopez was a particularly good actress. The only time I've ever liked her was in Selina. Her voice is too nasally and whiny sounding to me.

Hey. This is the Unpopular Opinion thread, right?

Not unpopular with me.  I think she brings down anything she’s in so I avoid her stuff completely.

[Browncoat]

I also like the Ewoks!  I even like the original Yub Nub song that got edited out/replaced in the new and (not) improved version.

[Dandesun]

I don't give a shit about Harley Quinn. I didn't give a shit about her in Batman: The Animated Series and I have not given a shit about her since. Unfortunately, what once was apathy has developed into enmity.

Because I really did care about Birds of Prey back in the 90s and now it looks like she's co-opted that, too. *sigh*

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Dandesun said:

I don't give a shit about Harley Quinn. I didn't give a shit about her in Batman: The Animated Series and I have not given a shit about her since. Unfortunately, what once was apathy has developed into enmity.

Because I really did care about Birds of Prey back in the 90s and now it looks like she's co-opted that, too. *sigh*

I didn't mind her, per se, but I really loathe how they tarted her up.

[BlackberryJam]

9 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

I didn't mind her, per se, but I really loathe how they tarted her up.

I'm on record as disliking comic book films, but when it's a comic book character dressed kinderslut, I find it particularly hate-worthy. 

[supposebly]

I have never heard the term kinderslut but it's perfect!

[Danny Franks]

On 9/16/2019 at 4:12 PM, festivus said:

I didn't but Christian Bale's presence is the reason why I haven't been interested in re-watching the movies. I really need to watch the 2nd again though because I love Heath Ledger. Oh and don't get me started on the 3rd one. I can't stand Tom Hardy. Will not watch Venom unless it becomes necessary for me to do so because of Sony keeping Spider-Man. Anne Hathaway would be the only reason to ever watch the 3rd Batman again and even that is not enough.

I found Bale to be a terrible Batman, and an even worse Bruce Wayne. No matter the performance, Bale comes off as cold and detached, but Bruce Wayne is supposed to be a charismatic, engaging, warm figure, even if it's an act.

And I think Nolan suffered from a fundamental lack of understanding of who Batman is, what Gotham City is, and how to make a comic book movie serious without making it boring. His Gotham was a sterile, every-city that had no sense of the malignant depths that Gotham City should have. His Batman was thuggish and one-note, not remotely "the world's greatest detective". I did think Ledger's performance as the Joker was really good (but regret it, because of the wave of fake, pseudo-intellectual nihilists who now see him as a role model), but Bane was fucking appalling. 

I watched The Dark Knight Rises once, and that was one time too many. Dull, far too long, and even the action scenes were boring. Yes, Anne Hathaway was the best thing about it. The only good thing about it. But nothing in that movie made emotional or narrative sense, from the unearned 'happy' ending to the tacked on cop, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. 

[topanga]

On 9/17/2019 at 9:44 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I've never thought that Jennifer Lopez was a particularly good actress. The only time I've ever liked her was in Selina. Her voice is too nasally and whiny sounding to me.

Hey. This is the Unpopular Opinion thread, right?

On 9/17/2019 at 12:37 PM, Crs97 said:

Not unpopular with me.  I think she brings down anything she’s in so I avoid her stuff completely.

In the movie Out of Sight, I thought JLo was, well, out of sight. I don't think anyone could've played that role as well as she did. But that's the only movie role of hers that I've thoroughly enjoyed. She's been okay in some others, but nothing outstanding.

I've never been able to watch Selina in its entirety--it still makes me too sad. 

And I liked her on the TV show Shades of Blue. 

[festivus]

46 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

But nothing in that movie made emotional or narrative sense, from the unearned 'happy' ending to the tacked on cop, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. 

True, but I actually did like JGL but that's just because I love him in general. I'm still hoping he shows up in the MCU someday.

46 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

I found Bale to be a terrible Batman, and an even worse Bruce Wayne. No matter the performance, Bale comes off as cold and detached, but Bruce Wayne is supposed to be a charismatic, engaging, warm figure, even if it's an act.

That's why I was hoping they'd go with Nicholas Hoult for the reboot because I think he could pull that off. I don't know if this is a UO but I think they're rebooting Batman too soon after Batfleck. Should just let it rest for a while. This opinion is probably helped by me watching 5 seasons of Gotham, which I mostly loved.

[proserpina65]

On ‎09‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 5:07 PM, NutMeg said:

Otherwise, I also wanted to answer a post about Nothing Hill (sorry I somehow lost the quote), saying it was neither romantic nor funny. It always felt to me as an attempt to replicate the charm of Four Weddings and a Funeral that unfortunately only kept the more pedestrian parts and neglected all of what made the OG such a delight.

I was the one who made the original post, and I agree with you completely.