Unpopular Opinions

[Spartan Girl]

So I don't see Rise of Skywalker til Saturday but of course I know there's already people that are pissed and unhappy. My UO is that I can't bring myself to give a baker's fuck, especially if the unhappy people are the same ones that endlessly bitched about the other movies, threw those tantrums over Last Jedi and harassed poor Kelly Marie Tran. Because maybe if they hadn't unleashed such vitriol, the writers wouldn't have felt obligated to cater to the demands of these whiners (and had a more solid plan in place) then the movie might have been better.

Again, I can't give my final judgment because I haven't seen it yet, but if the toxic fans are still unhappy, then GOOD. They deserve it. These movies are supposed to be fun and their toxicity has ruined that. Don't blame it all on Disney and the writers.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Spartan Girl

[scarynikki12]

I want Tom Hanks to do more comedic roles. He has fantastic comedic timing yet most of his live action movies are dramas. Not over the top serious but still dramatic. He gets to do comedy in the Toy Story movies but I want a good, solid, live action comedy from him. His career took off because of Big, his rom-coms made money, he was hilarious in A League Of Their Own, and brings the funny when he's doing interviews. He and comedy go together perfectly. Take a break from the dramas and make us laugh Hanks.

[Blergh]

On 12/19/2019 at 7:55 AM, Spartan Girl said:

So I don't see Rise of Skywalker til Saturday but of course I know there's already people that are pissed and unhappy. My UO is that I can't bring myself to give a baker's fuck, especially if the unhappy people are the same ones that endlessly bitched about the other movies, threw those tantrums over Last Jedi and harassed poor Kelly Marie Tran. Because maybe if they hadn't unleashed such vitriol, the writers wouldn't have felt obligated to cater to the demands of these whiners (and had a more solid plan in place) then the movie might have been better.

Again, I can't give my final judgment because I haven't seen it yet, but if the toxic fans are still unhappy, then GOOD. They deserve it. These movies are supposed to be fun and their toxicity has ruined that. Don't blame it all on Disney and the writers.

In case anyone thinks you are a traitor to the SW Cult for not embracing any and all that this series has depicted, I'll go even further by saying that I'm not going to see Rise of Skywalker Saturday or any other day. Why? Because virtually everything since Return of the Jedi (from the literary Expanded Universe to cartoons to video games and the 'prequels' and now the Abrams-produced  add-on series) have been bummers in which cruelty and sadism have been glorified while the original arcs of facing  fears against overwhelming odds and redemption have been pooh-poohed and nullified AFIAC. I've not seen one Abrams add-on and have no regrets in doing so. Yes, I think Daisy Ridley is a perfectly good performer and there might have been a good movie or series depicting her as plucky, brave space opera fighter had they started an entirely new storyline from scratch which had zilch to do with SW but even her appeal as a performer is not enough to get me to want to risk ruining what had been a good glow I'd had from the end of Return of the Jedi that I've had to work to retain via avoiding as much as possible all SW stuff since then (though I made the mistake of seeing the bummer 'prequels' one time each and that was quite enough). 

[Blergh]

Uncle Walt definitely had his faults but I  firmly believe that he would NEVER had let his company do SW the way his successors allowed Mr. Abrams to do!  That would have been akin to having Mickey Mouse laugh at Old Yeller's death (IOW, unthinkable to what Mr. Disney thought was right , just  and entertaining re movies). 

[Anduin]

On 12/19/2019 at 9:55 PM, Spartan Girl said:

So I don't see Rise of Skywalker til Saturday but of course I know there's already people that are pissed and unhappy. My UO is that I can't bring myself to give a baker's fuck, especially if the unhappy people are the same ones that endlessly bitched about the other movies, threw those tantrums over Last Jedi and harassed poor Kelly Marie Tran. Because maybe if they hadn't unleashed such vitriol, the writers wouldn't have felt obligated to cater to the demands of these whiners (and had a more solid plan in place) then the movie might have been better.

Again, I can't give my final judgment because I haven't seen it yet, but if the toxic fans are still unhappy, then GOOD. They deserve it. These movies are supposed to be fun and their toxicity has ruined that. Don't blame it all on Disney and the writers.

But what about those who liked the previous ones, but didn't like this one?

[Crs97]

I hate the fact that my extreme dislike for The Last Jedi lumps me in with the racist trolls who bullied the actress.  I didn’t have a problem with her or any of the newbies, though Rey is a little too Mary Sue for my tastes.  My dislike is totally based on the hatchet job on Luke’s character.  Frankly, I am thrilled that Mark Hamill spoke out against the movie, for all his backtracking later, because I would have been thoroughly disappointed to think he actually believe Luke would behave the way he did.  It was ridiculous.

[Spartan Girl]

6 hours ago, Anduin said:

But what about those who liked the previous ones, but didn't like this one?

Those fans have my sympathy. I was specifically referring to the ones that whined about everything and can't be pleased no matter what, and the toxic fanboys that JJ  and the other writers tried to pander to with this one.

36 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

I hate the fact that my extreme dislike for The Last Jedi lumps me in with the racist trolls who bullied the actress.  I didn’t have a problem with her or any of the newbies, though Rey is a little too Mary Sue for my tastes.  My dislike is totally based on the hatchet job on Luke’s character.  Frankly, I am thrilled that Mark Hamill spoke out against the movie, for all his backtracking later, because I would have been thoroughly disappointed to think he actually believe Luke would behave the way he did.  It was ridiculous.

And that brings me to another UO of mine: I didn't have a problem with how Luke had changed. He, Han, and Leia couldn't stay the same people they were 40 years ago. People grow, change, and inevitably make bad decisions. It's not the same as characters doing a complete 180 in the span of a single season -- hi, Game of Thrones, what's good?!

[Crs97]

[Danny Franks]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 1:55 PM, Spartan Girl said:

So I don't see Rise of Skywalker til Saturday but of course I know there's already people that are pissed and unhappy. My UO is that I can't bring myself to give a baker's fuck, especially if the unhappy people are the same ones that endlessly bitched about the other movies, threw those tantrums over Last Jedi and harassed poor Kelly Marie Tran. Because maybe if they hadn't unleashed such vitriol, the writers wouldn't have felt obligated to cater to the demands of these whiners (and had a more solid plan in place) then the movie might have been better.

Again, I can't give my final judgment because I haven't seen it yet, but if the toxic fans are still unhappy, then GOOD. They deserve it. These movies are supposed to be fun and their toxicity has ruined that. Don't blame it all on Disney and the writers.

I've lost count of the bizarre reasons that Star Wars super fanboys have come up with for hating the new movies. One guy I know claimed his biggest problem was Chewie deciding not to eat that roast Porg, because some other Porgs looked at him with horror. It goes beyond rational thought, a lot of the time.

One of my best friends thinks Darth Maul is the greatest character ever to appear in Star Wars and I just... do not get it. At all. Maul was a shit villain in the shittiest Star Wars movie. I've stopped talking to him about the sequel trilogy, because he just goes off on windy rants about logical inconsistencies and why Rey doesn't make sense.

But this is the nature of extreme fandom. If everything isn't exactly as you want or expect it to be, then it's all just ruined. I guess I'm fortunate to just like Star Wars enough to really enjoy the new movies, without being so invested that I'm angry they contradict some novel written fifteen years ago, or that they changed Han's origin story.

The racism and misogyny is obviously something else, but it's often very hard to figure out when some of the legit and the 'legit to fanboys' critiques are disguises for pushing the hate-filled agendas of those idiots who made their own 'no women and no brown people' cuts of The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. Generally, I don't have the energy to try and figure out which people are acting in good faith and which aren't.

 

[Anduin]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

Those fans have my sympathy. I was specifically referring to the ones that whined about everything and can't be pleased no matter what, and the toxic fanboys that JJ  and the other writers tried to pander to with this one.

Okay, that's fair enough. I didn't like Solo based on its own merits, but I've never been the loudest whiner around.

26 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

But this is the nature of extreme fandom. If everything isn't exactly as you want or expect it to be, then it's all just ruined. I guess I'm fortunate to just like Star Wars enough to really enjoy the new movies, without being so invested that I'm angry they contradict some novel written fifteen years ago, or that they changed Han's origin story.

A lot of those books weren't great. I say that as someone who read them, still owns many of them. The NJO series was particularly rough. But people love the strangest things.

[kiddo82]

My Star Wars hot take is that The Force Awakens isn't a good as was initially thought.  I just rewatched it and I was kind of bored.  I think people were so happy to have a new Star Wars movie that didn't suck (full disclosure:  I don't think the prequels are as bad as they have been made out to be) that it was immediately latched onto at this great renaissance for the Star Wars movie franchise when it's...fine. But my experience with the franchise is probably atypical. People either love it or don't care and while I genuinely enjoy the experience of Star Wars,  (Yoda!  R2!  "These aren't the droids you're looking for."  Light sabers!), I don't know that I've ever really loved a singular film with maybe the exception of Empire and Rogue One, which I both really, really like.  I think the franchise is fun, but it lacks the attachment for me where I  have a set hope for how the characters/story line ends up.

P.S. Kylo Ren sucks.

Edited December 21, 2019 by kiddo82

[Mabinogia]

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I guess I'm fortunate to just like Star Wars enough to really enjoy the new movies, without being so invested that I'm angry they contradict some novel written fifteen years ago, or that they changed Han's origin story.

This is the best way to be a fan. I have a non-Star Wars fan who didn't like the last movie because of inconsistencies while I, a Star Wars fan (just original trilogy though, I don't get bogged down with all the other crap) loved it. Yeah, Luke changed, he's seen a lot in his life, that changes people. Sure it wasn't perfect and probably was inconsistent will all the background my friend had studied before the movie because she thought she had to know all that to know what was happening. Me, I just enjoyed the movie for what it was, a fun space movie with characters I love with the glaring exception of one who I can't even bring myself to love to hate because I just hate him sooooooooo much. (Has nothing to do with the fact he murdered his father/my first ever movie crush, nope, nothing at all to do with that....well, maybe a little.)

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, Anduin said:

Okay, that's fair enough. I didn't like Solo based on its own merits, but I've never been the loudest whiner around.

A lot of those books weren't great. I say that as someone who read them, still owns many of them. The NJO series was particularly rough. But people love the strangest things.

I hated NJO series so much. Except for the Millennium Falcon I never read anything after that particular timeline. I could go on forever how much I hated that series and how terrible it was. In the books you kind of have to pick and choose. Some are good, some are bad and some are just so horribly bad. I do like the early ones after Return of the Jedi and Heir to the Empire. We got to see Han, Leia and Luke going on adventures. But still ending happy.

I sometimes wonder if that's part of the disappointment about The Force Awakens and Last Jedi. Yeah we know they'd be different. Its been 30 years. But so much of it sounds like they never had any happy moments. We never got to "see" Han and Leia married on screened, a happy married couple. Most of us wanted more after Return of the Jedi, we wanted to see the Han, Leia and Luke together having adventures, seeing their lives after they defeated the Empire. Instead it mostly just all went to Hell. It is hard to reconcile the Luke who turned himself into Vader, pulling a lightsaber on his own nephew or giving up and leaving everyone especially Leia and Han on their own. Its hard to see Leia and Han who were together and happy after Return of the Jedi, separated and sounding like they had been for a very long time and their own son joining the Dark side because of well dumb reasons. His parents weren't around that much.  As much as I liked the last two movies and I really did, I still have and re-read the now Legends books because they were fun reads and we got to see them happy. Han and Leia as newlyweds and later parents, Luke started his Jedi Academy, the three still fighting against bad guys, 

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I've lost count of the bizarre reasons that Star Wars super fanboys have come up with for hating the new movies. One guy I know claimed his biggest problem was Chewie deciding not to eat that roast Porg, because some other Porgs looked at him with horror. It goes beyond rational thought, a lot of the time.

One of my best friends thinks Darth Maul is the greatest character ever to appear in Star Wars and I just... do not get it. At all. Maul was a shit villain in the shittiest Star Wars movie. I've stopped talking to him about the sequel trilogy, because he just goes off on windy rants about logical inconsistencies and why Rey doesn't make sense.

But this is the nature of extreme fandom. If everything isn't exactly as you want or expect it to be, then it's all just ruined. I guess I'm fortunate to just like Star Wars enough to really enjoy the new movies, without being so invested that I'm angry they contradict some novel written fifteen years ago, or that they changed Han's origin story.

The racism and misogyny is obviously something else, but it's often very hard to figure out when some of the legit and the 'legit to fanboys' critiques are disguises for pushing the hate-filled agendas of those idiots who made their own 'no women and no brown people' cuts of The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. Generally, I don't have the energy to try and figure out which people are acting in good faith and which aren't.

 

The extreme part is worse. You didn't like the movies, you hated the way they turned out. I get that. That really does stink. It seems like you used to be able to find people to talk about Star Wars, maybe you disagreed but you still had a discussion. That's half the fun. Spending hours debating the movies whether on forum boards or with friends or both was fun. But the extreme seem to really want to ruin the movies for everyone. Because they hated them everyone must too. Or think they get to decide who is a true fan or not. All of that is bullshit. They take the fun out of.  Or at least try to. So much of it is just so crazy. I don't really get it. 

I agree with Darth Maul he looked cool and the fight between him, Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon was cool but really that was it. He says so little and does so little. I really didn't care about him. He was fun or cool like Vader, he wasn't a manipulative psycho like Palpatine. I was fine with his death. Then again I was fine with Boba Fett's death. 

[kiddo82]

43 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

The extreme part is worse. You didn't like the movies, you hated the way they turned out. I get that. That really does stink. It seems like you used to be able to find people to talk about Star Wars, maybe you disagreed but you still had a discussion. That's half the fun. Spending hours debating the movies whether on forum boards or with friends or both was fun. But the extreme seem to really want to ruin the movies for everyone. Because they hated them everyone must too. Or think they get to decide who is a true fan or not. All of that is bullshit. They take the fun out of.  Or at least try to. So much of it is just so crazy. I don't really get it. 

snip

 Then again I was fine with Boba Fett's death. 

I know we've talked about this here before but what sucks for a lot of us is that nothing is allowed to just be anymore.  Everything has to be the best ever or the worst ever or there has to be hot take after hot take.  And like most things I'm sure it's the majority who fall somewhere on the spectrum while it's the vocal minority who have to muck up everything for the rest of us.  And it's totally okay to hate something on its own merits but it's also okay for others not to.

Re:  Boba Fett.  I never felt the love for him and was almost shocked to find he has this cult like devotion.  He was a guy who was there.

[Annber03]

34 minutes ago, kiddo82 said:

I know we've talked about this here before but what sucks for a lot of us is that nothing is allowed to just be anymore.  Everything has to be the best ever or the worst ever or there has to be hot take after hot take.  And like most things I'm sure it's the majority who fall somewhere on the spectrum while it's the vocal minority who have to muck up everything for the rest of us.  And it's totally okay to hate something on its own merits but it's also okay for others not to.

I have no horse in the Star Wars debate, as I'm not in that fandom, but speaking on a general level, YES, this, exactly. There's plenty of stuff I love that isn't perfect, no, but still has enough in it for me to like and enjoy. And If I really don't like something, then I just move on and focus on the stuff I do like, and those who enjoy the things I don't can go have their fun. It shouldn't be that complicated. 

[Danny Franks]

12 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

The extreme part is worse. You didn't like the movies, you hated the way they turned out. I get that. That really does stink. It seems like you used to be able to find people to talk about Star Wars, maybe you disagreed but you still had a discussion. That's half the fun. Spending hours debating the movies whether on forum boards or with friends or both was fun. But the extreme seem to really want to ruin the movies for everyone. Because they hated them everyone must too. Or think they get to decide who is a true fan or not. All of that is bullshit. They take the fun out of.  Or at least try to. So much of it is just so crazy. I don't really get it. 

I agree with Darth Maul he looked cool and the fight between him, Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon was cool but really that was it. He says so little and does so little. I really didn't care about him. He was fun or cool like Vader, he wasn't a manipulative psycho like Palpatine. I was fine with his death. Then again I was fine with Boba Fett's death. 

There's even a thing happening on reddit, where the Venn Diagram circle of misogynists, racists, incels and neckbeards have been DMing people with full spoilers for The Rise of Skywalker, if they post something that offends their delicate sensibilities. So it's not just that they want to wallow in the idea that the movies are ruined for them, they also want to ruin any enjoyment other people might have, through petty, spiteful childishness.

But the purity testing for fandom is incredibly tiresome. No, I didn't know that the box droid in A New Hope has a name and a backstory. And I don't care. You get it with every fandom now, with people one-upping each other to prove they're 'better' fans. I guess this probably always happened, and that if you went back to the 1960s you'd have Beatles fans arguing over which B-side track was better, and wowing one another with their knowledge of Ringo's family background.

11 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I know we've talked about this here before but what sucks for a lot of us is that nothing is allowed to just be anymore.  Everything has to be the best ever or the worst ever or there has to be hot take after hot take.  And like most things I'm sure it's the majority who fall somewhere on the spectrum while it's the vocal minority who have to muck up everything for the rest of us.  And it's totally okay to hate something on its own merits but it's also okay for others not to.

Re:  Boba Fett.  I never felt the love for him and was almost shocked to find he has this cult like devotion.  He was a guy who was there.

We aren't allowed to see nuance. Everything has to be amazing or a travesty, and the tribalism of each camp allows no middle ground. There's a sort of manic aspect to fandom that just escapes me. 

I don't like to draw this comparison, because it's unfair to the people who go to them, but I have similar feelings about sci-fi or comic book or movie conventions. It probably says a lot about me, but I just don't feel comfortable dealing with that kind of fervent, devout fandom.

It just seems like they're destined for either crushing disappointment or to double down and refuse to brook any criticism of their chosen fandom.

[Simon Boccanegra]

20 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

My Star Wars hot take is that The Force Awakens isn't a good as was initially thought.  I just rewatched it and I was kind of bored.  

It's like an amusement park ride you've been on before, not once but several times. It's in good working order. It does the job. It's still a lot of fun. But you know every turn and dip so well you can time them, and their familiarity keeps you from getting those dizzying thrills.   

I saw it in 2015 and then streamed it again myself recently. I had really disliked The Last Jedi, but a friend put up a passionate argument on its behalf, so I thought I should give it another shot. Then I thought it (The Last Jedi) might work better if I brushed up on what had come immediately prior. The answer was both yes and no on that. It was helpful as story reorientation, but it threw into sharper relief what a different tack the 2017 film took.  

TLJ was really beautiful visually. One of the high points in the series as far as that goes, and it goes a long way in this kind of movie. I just found it better as design and as a nervy departure than as something well thought through and executed.

I haven't seen Rise of Skywalker yet, but the tug-of-war of vision within the so-called Sequel Trilogy is an interesting subplot. It should be a cautionary tale to other franchise filmmakers. (Inasmuch as something that makes billions can be "cautionary.") 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[starri]

Hot Take:  As Revenge of the Sith is by far the best of the prequels, Rise of Skywalker is the best of the sequels.  That said, I really liked Last Jedi when I saw it in the theater, but I haven't actually revisited it since, just because the almost utter lack of nuance in most online discussions made analyzing it seem pointless.

Lukewarm Take:  Having to sit through twenty minutes of commercials even before the trailers at any Regal Cinemas-owned theater makes me feel bad for Maria Menounos.

[Bastet]

10 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I don't like to draw this comparison, because it's unfair to the people who go to them, but I have similar feelings about sci-fi or comic book or movie conventions. It probably says a lot about me, but I just don't feel comfortable dealing with that kind of fervent, devout fandom.

I got talked into going to one about ten years ago to attend an X-Files panel.  It was every bit as discomfiting as I'd anticipated and we were only there half a day. 

[Athena]

This thread is not the Star Wars thread nor is it about fandoms. Please move the conversation along to something else. Thank you.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm going to put this here because one, I couldn't find the thread for all the movies, and two, because I know it's unpopular and I don't care. It bothers me because I live near there; it irks me, and it's one of the reasons why I don't like it as much as I would have, had the stupid idiots in charge just done the basic shooting or use stock footage of the place.

Sorry.

I'm speaking of Diehard 2. First, it's set at Dulles International Airport, which is in DULLES, VIRGINIA. NOT WASHINGTON, D.C. D.C. has its OWN airport--which is now Reagan National. And the Virginia cops don't wear the blue uniforms--they wear khaki.

And that was NOT Dulles Airport.

The producers, director, or whoever is in charge, were just damn lazy. This wasn't a made for TV movie. It was a big budget movie. They had the money; so they could have shot some stock footage of inside the airport, and there's plenty of stock footage of the OUTSIDE of Dulles, where they could have filmed that unique design.

Ridiculous.

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by GHScorpiosRule

[proserpina65]

5 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I'm going to put this here because one, I couldn't find the thread for all the movies, and two, because I know it's unpopular and I don't care. It bothers me because I leave near there; it irks me, and it's one of the reasons why I don't like it as much as I would have, had the stupid idiots in charge just done the basic shooting or use stock footage of the place.

Sorry.

I'm speaking of Diehard 2. First, it's set at Dulles International Airport, which is in DULLES, VIRGINIA. NOT WASHINGTON, D.C. D.C. has its OWN airport--which is now Reagan National. And the Virginia cops don't wear the blue uniforms--they wear khaki.

And that was NOT Dulles Airport.

The producers, director, or whoever is in charge, were just damn lazy. This wasn't a made for TV movie. It was a big budget movie. They had the money; so they could have shot some stock footage of inside the airport, and there's plenty of stock footage of the OUTSIDE of Dulles, where they could have filmed that unique design.

Ridiculous.

 

Don't forget the payphone prominently displaying the Pacific Bell logo.

[GHScorpiosRule]

38 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Don't forget the payphone prominently displaying the Pacific Bell logo.

Right.

Or that each and every airline has its own entrance! The names of the airlines are listed above so you know where to go to drop off people and even when you're picking up, you have to FUCKING PARK in the lot, then you walk over, cross the curb, where the shuttles and cabs are. John would never have been allowed to just park and leave his mother-in-law's car while he went to do whatever he did. The cops would have told him to move his car along.

Even before 9/11, you would have to keep circling until your mom, dad, husband, wife, brother, sister, cousin, niece, nephew, granny, grampa, friend, boyfriend, girlfriend or whoever you were picking up, was actually at the curb, that would allow you to stop, let them in, so you could then drive and get back on 495.

Or that the TAXIS in the DC/MD/VA area are not NY Yellow!!!!!

[Popples]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I'm speaking of Diehard 2. First, it's set at Dulles International Airport, which is in DULLES, VIRGINIA. NOT WASHINGTON, D.C. D.C. has its OWN airport--which is now Reagan National. And the Virginia cops don't wear the blue uniforms--they wear khaki.

National is closer to DC than Dulles, but it's still in Virginia.

[Dandesun]

On 12/27/2019 at 1:51 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Right.

Or that each and every airline has its own entrance! The names of the airlines are listed above so you know where to go to drop off people and even when you're picking up, you have to FUCKING PARK in the lot, then you walk over, cross the curb, where the shuttles and cabs are. John would never have been allowed to just park and leave his mother-in-law's car while he went to do whatever he did. The cops would have told him to move his car along.

Even before 9/11, you would have to keep circling until your mom, dad, husband, wife, brother, sister, cousin, niece, nephew, granny, grampa, friend, boyfriend, girlfriend or whoever you were picking up, was actually at the curb, that would allow you to stop, let them in, so you could then drive and get back on 495.

Or that the TAXIS in the DC/MD/VA area are not NY Yellow!!!!!

Totally accurate. Never mind that Dulles was in a constant state of construction at that time which REALLY meant you couldn't stop at that curb and just... wander off. I lived in Vienna but it was so far out Hunter Mill Rd that it was easier, faster and closer to take the Toll Road to Dulles to pick up my Dad from his numerous business trips than it EVER was to go into DC. Also, being before the age of cell phones... it was all a guessing game. If we left to get to the airport when his flight landed it would result is SEVERAL turns around the loop because we neglected to take into account how long it took for him to get in from the midfield terminal.

I remember seeing Die Hard 2 in the theater. It came out in 1990 so I was still living in Virginia (although probably going to school out of state at the time) and I do recall going 'that's not Dulles' A LOT. Had quite forgotten all of it... thanks for the memories!

  

On 12/27/2019 at 3:04 PM, Popples said:

National is closer to DC than Dulles, but it's still in Virginia.

Yes, that's true. It's across the Potomac so it is in Virginia. Meanwhile, Dulles was out in the boonies so the whole plan to take over made total movie sense to me.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Dandesun

[RealHousewife]

I don't get how Jennifer Lopez got any Oscar buzz for Hustlers. I'm not saying she was bad in it, but she didn't morph into another person, move me to tears, or do anything that makes her stand out compared to all the other performances I've seen this year. It was a stripper movie that had a plot. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Yeah, I think she benefits from everyone's lowered expectations of her based on 90% of her career.

I also think that really good-looking people in general get a lot of acclaim that they normally wouldn't.  Brad Pitt in OUATIH?  Ana de Armas in Knives Out?  I do noooooooooot get why there is Oscar buzz for these performances.  J.Lo was at least better than those two in my opinion.  But I still don't think she was *that* great.  I still preferred her in "Out of Sight" and I still haven't seen "Selena".

Edited December 31, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[Crs97]

I don’t know how JLo has a career at all.  She is not that talented in anything. My UO.

[Ohwell]

I've always believed that J-Lo never would have had a career if Selena hadn't been tragically killed. 

[Danny Franks]

I think Jennifer Lopez really hurt her image (though not her bank balance) by becoming the all-encompassing media megastar - acts, sings, dances, has her own clothing and perfume range. I remember being really impressed with her in Out of Sight and U Turn. Then she came out with a record that was just auto-tuned crap, and before anyone knew it, we all just saw her as J-Lo, and people seemed to forget she had been a proper actress at all.

Beyonce seemed to try the same thing, but was appalling as an actress. I guess she's a better singer than Lopez, but not as good as people seem to think.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I'm sorry but I think Beyonce is a million times better of a singer than J.Lo

 

[Ohwell]

JLo didn't even sing when she portrayed Selena, she lip-synced Selena's songs.  There was only one instance where she used her own voice, and that was to sing three words.

[Wiendish Fitch]

My UO is that I think Selena is a garbage bio-pic. Conventional, sugary, and it reduces Selena to this insufferably precious, "Cool Girl" cardboard cutout instead of the interesting, complex person I'm sure she was. 

[Blergh]

5 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

My UO is that I think Selena is a garbage bio-pic. Conventional, sugary, and it reduces Selena to this insufferably precious, "Cool Girl" cardboard cutout instead of the interesting, complex person I'm sure she was. 

IOW, it was somewhat a late 20th century, Latin solo trope that the mid 20th century Sound of Music somewhat epitomized, IMO.

The latter movie evolved/devolved from an already sanitized, saccharine bio by Maria Von Trapp who made it seem as though she was the sole savior of the late Baron and his children by his first union . The movie depicted it as though that they all LOVED singing from Day One and were eager to become singers solely out of wanting to share their talents with the world. In truth, she was a novice nun who'd been sent to help care for one of the Baron's semi-invalid daughters then married the Baron despite admitting that she only did it due to her Mother Superior's command and only learned to love him after she had learned to love the children. Moreover, the double-whammy of the loss of the Austrian Empire (with the Republic of Austria no longer having any seaports or coastline) resulting in the end of the Baron's naval career  AND the Depression wiping out virtually all of their funds, Maria had her stepchildren sing for their supper rather than just out of the love of singing. Oh, and they were married in 1927 but the NAZIs didn't take over Austria until 1938 (when they had had two children of their own) but not only were the Von Trapps depicted as having to flee after their honeymoon but their own elder two children  having been born was omitted.. It would have been a more interesting movie had they been depicted adding children to an already large family with dwindling resources then  having to make their career due to losing their monies and then becoming refugees in the US while touring the world singing Austrian folk songs- with Maria ruling them with an iron hand but that's not what we got.

      IMO, the best part of the movie was the opening flight through the Austrian Alps & countryside . Moreover, hearing those Alpine winds blowing & bird songs was more satisfying than virtually all the songs thereafter (though I do like the title opening song, "Something Good" and "Edelweiss"). 

[Shannon L.]

@Blergh , I grew up not far from where they settled. My father had friends who worked in the border patrol and the story was that she was quite a pill. They hated seeing her coming because she always gave them a hard time.

[Blergh]

8 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

@Blergh , I grew up not far from where they settled. My father had friends who worked in the border patrol and the story was that she was quite a pill. They hated seeing her coming because she always gave them a hard time.

Considering how far removed Mrs. Von Trapp seemed to be from Miss Andrew's depiction of her in the movie -especially in terms of how she appears to have been more exploitative than nurturing to her stepchildren and offspring, I think more than one than one of the Von Trapps would have agreed with your father's friend's assessment. 

 Virtually all the Baron's offspring were rather taken aback at the harsh, bitter depiction of him in the movie and even Maria herself said didn't think they were being fair to his memory(though Christopher Plummer would claim that she thought HIM so handsome that she said her marriage to the Baron would have been happier had her late husband  been blessed with Mr. Plummer's appearance ). It seems he was easily the kinder of the two and as close to  a court of last resort for his offspring re Maria they had  but she usually wound up overwhelming him anyway along with the rest of the family.

Anyway, my UO is that I think SOM would have been more interesting had they dealt with her and the Baron's actual characters instead of pitching a rather treacly, sanitized version! 

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

Anyway, my UO is that I think SOM would have been more interesting had they dealt with her and the Baron's actual characters instead of pitching a rather treacly, sanitized version! 

I would actually like to see a more accurate dramatic version of the actual story of the Von Trapps. It's a great story. I do like SOM the musical and it's fine for what it is but it is not the true story of the von Trapp family, which I do think is an interesting story without all the singing and rearranging personalities. 

[scriggle]

My extremely unpopular opinion: Avengers: Endgame is a travesty. It's nothing more than a series of fan service moments strung together masquerading as a plot. It did a great disservice to the solo films that preceded it and disrespected established character arcs. The characters were barely recognizable as being the same ones from previous movies. It was a terrible conclusion.

AE has effectively ruined my enjoyment of the MCU. I haven't been able to rewatch any of the phase 1 & 2 movies that I love(d) without thinking of the mess Marvel made with AE. At this point, I have little interest in the MCU going forward. Why should I get emotionally invested in any thing they do now? They betrayed my trust once. I won't allow them to do it again.

[PepSinger]

On 1/1/2020 at 9:17 AM, Danny Franks said:

I think Jennifer Lopez really hurt her image (though not her bank balance) by becoming the all-encompassing media megastar - acts, sings, dances, has her own clothing and perfume range. I remember being really impressed with her in Out of Sight and U Turn. Then she came out with a record that was just auto-tuned crap, and before anyone knew it, we all just saw her as J-Lo, and people seemed to forget she had been a proper actress at all.

Beyonce seemed to try the same thing, but was appalling as an actress. I guess she's a better singer than Lopez, but not as good as people seem to think.

To be fair, Jennifer Lopez was initially a dancer, so the singer thing isn't too far fetched.

My UO is that I love Jennifer Lopez, and I'm glad that she's having a career resurgence. Good for her. I've always liked her movies and albums. Also, back in the days of Britney, Christina, et al, Jennifer Lopez was the best dancer out of the group, and she can still do the moves today.

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, PepSinger said:

My UO is that I love Jennifer Lopez, and I'm glad that she's having a career resurgence. Good for her. I've always liked her movies and albums. Also, back in the days of Britney, Christina, et al, Jennifer Lopez was the best dancer out of the group, and she can still do the moves today.

I've always liked her as well. When she chooses the right role (like Hustlers, The Wedding Planner, Selena, Out of Sight) she really shines. Her singing voice isn't that great but she chooses catchy songs that are fun to dance to which makes it easy for me to focus on the music rather than the vocals. Besides, pop music is overflowing with singers who can barely carry a tune but sell records in part due to the catchy music (and top notch publicists) so I applaud Jennifer for taking some of that money for herself. I think the reason she's still a dancer after all these years is because she seems to take care of herself. Christina's dancing only seemed to be because that's what the pop artists were doing at that time and her show really improved when they stopped acting like she was this great talent and focused on her vocals and stage presence. Britney had dance talents that helped distract from her poor vocals but she never took care of herself/her handlers never took care of her and had a ton of injuries as a result. Jennifer may do some of the things that a lot of entertainers do to their bodies to make them look perfect but, if she does, it's kept to a minimum as evidenced by the fact that she can still dance.

I'm among those who hopes she gets an Oscar nomination for Hustlers. First, because she was so much fun in that movie and it was clear that she was having a ball as well. She got to unleash her natural charisma and attitude in a different way than she has in her other top roles and she had a solid script to work with and a director who helped her shine. Second, the supporting categories are where the Academy is willing to take more risks so her chances are automatically better than if they were to try for the lead category. Third, I loved her reaction to getting nominated for the Golden Globe and I'd like to see that again. She was overwhelmed and moved just to be recognized and this would be a situation where the nomination is the win so she wouldn't necessarily have to take home the actual award. Finally, Hollywood loves to take advantage of what seems to be the only chance someone will get a nomination/win so they may choose to nominate her with that in mind. I firmly believe Sandra Bullock mainly won her Oscar because they collectively thought The Blind Side would be her only chance (and I think it would have been for Gravity if that had come out first). The industry loves her and were thrilled to award her but her movies typically don't get award buzz so they took advantage when she had one that finally did. I'm not suggesting that Jennifer will win the Oscar but I think the odds of her getting nominated are solid. We'll know for sure on...the internet says Jan 13.

An unpopular opinion of mine is that I'm more and more not enjoying love scenes or actors having scenes shirtless. Let me explain. In the wake of stories like Bertolucci and Brando pressuring Maria Schneider into filming the rape scene for Last Tango In Paris or Weinstein forcing Salma Hayek to film a full frontal love scene for Frida-which she wasn't comfortable with but did because if she didn't he'd never distribute the movie, I've started wondering if any of the actors involved truly want to be filming these scenes or if the pervasive sexual harassment that we know has and is going on behind the scenes is forcing their hand. All I can do is hope that the people involved in the scene I'm watching were willing and never pressured but I can't enjoy them.

Along similar lines, knowing what actors have to put their bodies through to achieve that sculpted look when they take their shirts off has soured me on those scenes as well. Henry Cavill was on Graham Norton just the other week talking about his dehydration regimen in order for his body to look ripped when his muscles are visible and I don't want that for anyone. I've also lost count of how many actors have said that they only eat lettuce when they have a shirtless scene coming up or the excessive exercising they do in conjunction with lowering their water intake and cutting food from their diets. That photo of Kumail's ripped arms and torso for filming The Eternals made the rounds a couple weeks ago but all I can think when I see it is how dehydrated and hungry he must be in that photo. This is considered completely normal and I hate it so much.

And don't even get me started on the obvious steroid use among actors in action movies.

[El maestro]

Donnie Brasco... who can really believe that Johnny Deep did good in that movie?
 

It is impossible to believe that he is a cop or even more, he is working undercover inside the mafia. Please...

Edited January 3, 2020 by El maestro

[Ohiopirate02]

22 hours ago, scriggle said:

My extremely unpopular opinion: Avengers: Endgame is a travesty. It's nothing more than a series of fan service moments strung together masquerading as a plot. It did a great disservice to the solo films that preceded it and disrespected established character arcs. The characters were barely recognizable as being the same ones from previous movies. It was a terrible conclusion.

AE has effectively ruined my enjoyment of the MCU. I haven't been able to rewatch any of the phase 1 & 2 movies that I love(d) without thinking of the mess Marvel made with AE. At this point, I have little interest in the MCU going forward. Why should I get emotionally invested in any thing they do now? They betrayed my trust once. I won't allow them to do it again.

This is not an unpopular opinion at least in the Internet circles I frequent.  The writing for Endgame was atrocious and subsequent interviews with the writers and directors just made it all worse.  

[Anduin]

MCU Thor. I'm a fan of norse mythology and viking-age culture. I was so excited when the first Thor movie was announced, and even more excited to see it. I went to the cinema listening to viking metal on my ipod, wearing an Amon Amarth shirt. I hated it. Everything was just wrong in a way I can't define. But I saw Dark World, which was slightly less terrible. Still not actually good.

Then the trailer for Ragnarok. It leaned into everything I hated from the previous movies, and looked the complete opposite of how I'd do a Ragnarok movie. Saturated in neon? Buddy comedy? Gladiator fun and games? No. My pitch: Vikings meets the second half of Rogue One. I couldn't bring myself to see it. From what I've heard, Asgard is indeed destroyed, but it's still treated like a joke.

Yes, a lot of people like to talk up Taika Waititi. But I'll never be one of them.

[starri]

I prefer Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.  The former has quite good performances (even if it's just Depp doing Depp) and good cinematography.  The latter has awkward performances from child actors (Veruca excepted) and quite a few singers who can't sing.  It has a good performance from Jack Albertson, one good song, two good memes, and the boat ride scene and the collective scar it left on the psyche of Gen X as the only things going for it.

[kiddo82]

9 hours ago, starri said:

 It has a good performance from Jack Albertson, one good song, two good memes, and the boat ride scene and the collective scar it left on the psyche of Gen X as the only things going for it.

Sarcastic Wonka and ?  I'm drawing a blank on the other one.  I just like "You get nothing!  You lose!  Good day, sir!"

[Blergh]

1 hour ago, kiddo82 said:

Sarcastic Wonka and ?  I'm drawing a blank on the other one.  I just like "You get nothing!  You lose!  Good day, sir!"

Give me  the 'Crazy Like a Fox' Wilder Wonka over Michael Jackson Neverland Wannabee Depp Wonka ANY day, IMO.

 

 As long as I'm here, I might as well express my UO re Something About Mary (which seems to have drawn some derision on the News Forum): I don't care how big a box office draw it was, how successful it may have been as a rental, how many awards it may have won, I STILL dislike it very much and will do so as long as I have a breath in me!

  IMO, it was a meanspirited, vile, crude,vulgar, nasty and humorless spectacle  and I also haven't forgotten how its fans dissed those of us who didn't worship it- sometimes in the most vile ways! 

[Wiendish Fitch]

11 minutes ago, Blergh said:

 As long as I'm here, I might as well express my UO re Something About Mary (which seems to have drawn some derision on the News Forum): I don't care how big a box office draw it was, how successful it may have been as a rental, how many awards it may have won, I STILL dislike it very much and will do so as long as I have a breath in me!

  IMO, it was a meanspirited, vile, crude,vulgar, nasty and humorless spectacle  and I also haven't forgotten how its fans dissed those of us who didn't worship it- sometimes in the most vile ways! 

If it makes you feel any better, I've only seen bits and pieces on TV, and that was enough for me! The Farrellys suck (IMO, of course), I can't stand Ben Stiller, Cameron Diaz's acting in it is garbage, and on top of all that, Mary is an insufferable Cool Girl (seriously, she's the one who inspired Gillian Flynn to write the "Cool Girl" monologue).

[Crs97]

3 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Cameron Diaz's acting in it is garbage

Isn’t her acting in everything garbage?  I cannot think of anything I have seen with her that I liked.

[Spartan Girl]

9 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

If it makes you feel any better, I've only seen bits and pieces on TV, and that was enough for me! The Farrellys suck (IMO, of course), I can't stand Ben Stiller, Cameron Diaz's acting in it is garbage, and on top of all that, Mary is an insufferable Cool Girl (seriously, she's the one who inspired Gillian Flynn to write the "Cool Girl" monologue).

Hey, then at least one good thing came out of it!