Unpopular Opinions

[Katy M]

18 minutes ago, starri said:

With the possible exception of Mulan, The Prince of Egypt was better than any Disney canon film released after 1994.

I think the only animated Disney movie I've seen since '94 is Frozen. And maybe Mulan, but I only sort of remember it, so I think I was doing something else while the kids were watching it.

[Blergh]

1 hour ago, starri said:

With the possible exception of Mulan, The Prince of Egypt was better than any Disney canon film released after 1994.

But did it need to have not one, not two but THREE separate soundtracks released (one each for a different genre of music)? Besides, it oddly seemed to try get the audience to feel more pity for the Pharaohic family rather than for Moses and the enslaved Israelites (and that's not all it changed from the Old Testament account).

[Wiendish Fitch]

Timothy Dalton wasn't a bad James Bond.

Okay, maybe it's premature for me to state this, since I've only seen The Living Daylights (which isn't half bad) so far, but I think Dalton is a perfectly fine Bond.

I think the problem was that no one can top the feral je ne sais quoi of Sean Connery, and people have always been divided on Roger Moore's quippy, lighthearted portrayal, so they made Dalton's Bond more of a down-to-earth regular guy... maybe a bit too much of a regular guy. But this isn't to put down's Dalton's performance; he plays the part as written, and his charm does come through (and, let's face it, Dalton in his prime was good-looking to the point of parody).

 

[BlackberryJam]

I don't care about Batman movies. I'm sure at some point I've seen them all in that, "I've had a shit day, I'll watch some meaningless drivel of a movie that requires absolutely no mental engagement to follow, oh look another Batman film."

I absolutely can't remember one from the other. They all just check boxes of "dark, gloomy city, lots of black against a black background for costuming with maybe some weak lamp light, silly villain in silly costume."

I couldn't rank them because in my mind, they are all the same damn movie. Not one of the Batman actors left more of an impression than the other. 

I don't understand why they keep making Batman movies in groups of three telling the same story over and over again. There are tons of excellent stories out that should be made into movies.

I also maybe saw the Christopher Reeve Spiderman film maybe when I was young. I saw the one Spiderman with Tobey Maguire because I liked him so much in The Ice Storm. 

[Spartan Girl]

20 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I also maybe saw the Christopher Reeve Spiderman film maybe when I was young.

I believe you mean Superman.

[BlackberryJam]

22 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

I believe you mean Superman.

Wait. I do. Bwhahaha. That's how little of an impression these films made on me. The Witcher is the plasticky Superman, right?

I could edit, but no, it's actually funnier that I fucked them up. 

Edited March 7, 2022 by BlackberryJam

[starri]

On 3/7/2022 at 1:22 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

Okay, maybe it's premature for me to state this, since I've only seen The Living Daylights (which isn't half bad) so far, but I think Dalton is a perfectly fine Bond.

Corollary: “The Living Daylights” is one of the best Bond themes. 

[AimingforYoko]

3 hours ago, starri said:

Corollary: “The Living Daylights” is one of the best Bond themes. 

Much like I am baffled by how much better Norway is at the Winter Olympics than Sweden, I'm a little confused as to why Sweden has had so many more successful pop groups than Norway. (Norwegian duo A-ha did "The Living Daylights")

Edited March 11, 2022 by AimingforYoko

[katha]

Gerwig's "Little Women" adaptation is inferior to Armstrong's version. Yes, Armstrong is too picturesque and traditional in places. But Gerwig really robs the story of its emotional heft by using the fragmented structure, no matter how artsy. Also, the acting is more uneven in the Gerwig version. Ronan and Pugh are great (when Pugh is not playing 12...). But Dern, Chalamet and Watson, for example, are all weaker than their counterparts in the Armstrong film IMO. Also, yeah, trying to make it too cutesy "historically authentic" can make things sterile, but Gerwig's Boho-Town in Instagram-Landia setting undercuts the radicality of these women, something she constantly talked about yet inadvertedly diminished by placing them in some sort of fantasy land disconnected from even an attempt at historical accuracy, I felt. 

To stay in the family: Noah Baumbach is very talented, yet constantly limits himself by making 3000 versions of the same mumblecore self-insert movie and it's a waste. Even his best efforts like "Marriage Story" suffer from how narrow their horizon is and how very low the stakes are. Yeah, there's "write what you know", but he's over 50 now and has taken it to really claustrophobic extremes IMO. There's gotta be more for him than "dimestore Woody Allen", or "dimestore Cassavetes" or whatever. 

[magicdog]

On 11/3/2021 at 1:50 PM, Mabinogia said:

I love a good ghost story/movie but I hate the trend of these "found footage" style movies. As soon as I see a shaky hand held I'm out. 

Same.  All the shaky cam stuff makes me nauseous and I can't enjoy the film.  I'm also annoyed by "documentary style" footage in which people are filmed and there are sudden zoom closeups.  I like steady cams thanks!

[wallflower75]

On 3/12/2022 at 8:01 AM, katha said:

Gerwig's "Little Women" adaptation is inferior to Armstrong's version. Yes, Armstrong is too picturesque and traditional in places. But Gerwig really robs the story of its emotional heft by using the fragmented structure, no matter how artsy. Also, the acting is more uneven in the Gerwig version. Ronan and Pugh are great (when Pugh is not playing 12...). But Dern, Chalamet and Watson, for example, are all weaker than their counterparts in the Armstrong film IMO. Also, yeah, trying to make it too cutesy "historically authentic" can make things sterile, but Gerwig's Boho-Town in Instagram-Landia setting undercuts the radicality of these women, something she constantly talked about yet inadvertedly diminished by placing them in some sort of fantasy land disconnected from even an attempt at historical accuracy, I felt. 

Thank you!  I felt like I was the only voice speaking out about how I thought Armstrong's version was better.  I'm not a big fan of Chalamet or Watson (outside of HP), and while I thought that Florence Pugh made a wonderful adult Amy (better than Samantha Mathis), having her play Amy as a child was just ridiculous (and she was not better than Kirsten Dunst).  Toss up on which Jo was better, because I liked both Saoirse Ronan and Winona Ryder's performances.

[Spartan Girl]

Javier Bardem did not deserve to get an Oscar nomination for Being the Ricardos. His spot could have been easily been filled by Peter Dinklage in Cyrano or literally any other performance.

[andromeda331]

On 3/13/2022 at 9:52 AM, wallflower75 said:

Thank you!  I felt like I was the only voice speaking out about how I thought Armstrong's version was better.  I'm not a big fan of Chalamet or Watson (outside of HP), and while I thought that Florence Pugh made a wonderful adult Amy (better than Samantha Mathis), having her play Amy as a child was just ridiculous (and she was not better than Kirsten Dunst).  Toss up on which Jo was better, because I liked both Saoirse Ronan and Winona Ryder's performances.

I liked Amy better in Gerwig's but that's about it. I hated adult Laurie the most. I don't know why they made him such a jerk. I know he was partly a jerk in the book as an adult but not that bad. I had a hard time seeing why Amy ended up with him. The rest just wasn't that good. The emotional beats weren't there. The 1940s is my favorite but in every version there emotional moments. I get why Jo doesn't want Meg to marry. I feel for them all when Beth is sick and they have to send for their mother and when she dies. Its mostly just boring.

Edited March 15, 2022 by andromeda331

[elle]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

The emotional beats weren't there.

So true!  I recently caught the last half hour. I don’t think I would have made it through the entire movie.  I let out an exasperated yelp during the “my hands are empty” scene.  My DH came to check on me then had to listen to my rant about it.

Can someone explain to me why it was decided not to have John lose an arm in the war?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

6 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I liked Amy better in Gerwig's but that's about it. I hated adult Laurie the most. I don't know why they made him such a jerk.

I think they wanted to play it like he was jealous because Amy was supposed to be getting engaged to Fred, but Laurie just comes off like an ass when they're at the dance. It's bad enough he was still wearing the ring her sister gave him, but then he's pissy at Amy because she calls him on not 'bearing it well.' So he mocks her about planning to spend Fred's fortune, embarrassing her publicly before stomping off. Like, dude, get a grip on yourself.

Springboarding off of that, I'm not sure Timothee Chalamet is cut out to be a leading man. I haven't seen Dune yet, so maybe he'll impress me there. It would help if he grows out of looking fourteen. I know he can't help how he looks, but he doesn't seem to have much presence opposite his female co-stars, and the super-young face and slight build don't help. When you're supposedly almost a foot taller than the actress playing your future wife, she shouldn't overshadow you even when you're standing side by side.

[Shannon L.]

On 3/3/2022 at 2:32 AM, kiddo82 said:

CODA was...fine?  I don't begrudge the SAG wins because I didn't have a problem with the cast, (I called it, actually) but the overall story wasn't anything we haven't already seen time and time again.  Don't get me wrong, there are instances when a movie can charm me enough where that doesn't matter, but for whatever reason, thar didn't happen this time around.  It's not a bad movie, but at no point did I ever think it's a "best" movie.

 

Man.  I've been holding that in for a while.

I really liked CODA, but I get it.  I've felt that way about a lot of the Oscar nominees that are about families or characters coming of age (or moving out on their own).  I didn't particularly care for Lady Bird or Brooklyn.  They were fine, but I didn't get all the nominations.

[kiddo82]

10 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I really liked CODA, but I get it.  I've felt that way about a lot of the Oscar nominees that are about families or characters coming of age (or moving out on their own).  I didn't particularly care for Lady Bird or Brooklyn.  They were fine, but I didn't get all the nominations.

I felt that way abouy Lady Bird as well.  Of the three you mentioned, Brooklyn is the one that worked its magic on me the most but it's also in my class of good/not great. I've never really had a desire to watch it again.

You could also say that Belfast fits that mold for me.  I really did enjoy my time with it but I could never shake the feeling that if it wasn't Kenneth Brannaugh/had a prestige release date no one would have given it much of a thought come awards time.  Ironically, the thing about Belfast that I thought was far and away most deserving of a nomination was Catriona Balfe's performance.  

[JustHereForFood]

Is it still an unpopular opinion that Oscars are boring, overrated and unnecessary, or has it become mainstream opinion in past few years?

[Hiyo]

I'd say it's become a bit mainstream.

Quote

CODA was...fine?

I thought it was ok-ish at best.

[pancake bacon]

58 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

Is it still an unpopular opinion that Oscars are boring, overrated and unnecessary, or has it become mainstream opinion in past few years?

By "Oscars", do you mean the Academy Award honors itself, or the ceremony? For the former, I'd say that to consider them overrated and unnecessary to be still an unpopular opinion. 

If you refer to the Oscars ceremony, then it would be mainstream opinion at this point. The days of having a ceremony that would have 20 million viewers for the night are never coming back. I would suggest for the Academy/ABC (yeah, they totally listen to me, haha) to fully embrace it's no-longer mainstream self and go full-on industry event. Geek out on the movie-dom of it all. The best moments are the usually heartfelt and increasingly clever acceptance speeches, even the unlikely sound editor or documentary short filmmaker. Apparently the funniest speech of the entire evening was Joe Walker, the editor for Dune, and which was awarded pre-telecast.

Give us this, Academy!!

[JustHereForFood]

6 minutes ago, pancake bacon said:

By "Oscars", do you mean the Academy Award honors itself, or the ceremony?

Both, I don't differentiate between them. I rarely see more than 2 of nominated movies if that and they are usually "artsy" movies that get critical acclaim with an aura of "If you don't like it or don't get it, you are just not smart or cool enough". Meanwhile, popular movies that people actually liked get ignored. And yes, the ceremony is a joke.

[Hiyo]

Quote

And yes, the ceremony is a joke.

The ceremony would work better if it trimmed some of the fat, though I suppose it varies to people on what should be trimmed...

Quote

Meanwhile, popular movies that people actually liked get ignored

Popularity doesn't always equal quality; see the live action Transformers movies.

[Danny Franks]

I think someone being an Oscar nominee or Oscar winner is still a pretty cool cachet to have, but there's no way I'd ever watch an awards ceremony. They're just full of second-hand embarrassment and overly earnest speechifying.

I especially resent this year because now we've got that Scientology weirdo, Will Smith, all over everything.

[Hiyo]

I think the Golden Globes and SAG Awards usually do it well. The SAG back in the day was the best, no opening monologue, no song performances, just hand out the awards, acknowledge those no longer with us, and give one or two people a lifetime award.

I do enjoy the Oscars but would probably enjoy them more if they did cut things like song performances and tributes to random things (like this year's tributes to The Godfather, James Bond, etc).

[kiddo82]

I think the Oscars ceremony is at a crossroads.  They either should go full nerd and embrace all the technical categories while getting rid of the performances and bits or go in the opposite direction.   As it stands, they are trying to do both and it pleases nobody.  What James Bond fan is going to sit through two hours of show just to watch a 30 second clip package someone put together as a tribute?  You could watch the same things fans edit together on YouTube.  At least this year they had the live Bruno performance to promote.  No way they could mess that up, right?  And yet somehow they did!  I will give this year's producers credit for this, I liked how they brought out Wesley Snipes, Woody Harrelson, and Rosie Perez for White Men Can't Jump and John Travolta, Uma Thurman, and Samuel L Jackson for Pulp Fiction as presenters.  I thought was a cool way to honor the past and those stars without taking up any more time that pairing together two randos would have done.  More of that, please.

The irony this year is you had two movies score big that do/can have mass appeal and yet no one saw them or cared.  People saw Dune but definitely not in the numbers it would have done in years past and no one can see CODA because it's only available on Apple.  It's a movie that is so easy to get behind yet it's not easily accessible for a lot of people.  Who wants to subscribe to yet another streaming service?  In pre-pandemic times and with a normal release schedule for this scope of film, I imagine that CODA could have had My Big Fat Greek Wedding success.  (Apple will never do this because they obviously want people to subscribe to their service, but CODA is a movie that would do gangbusters on VOD. )  Combine that with it's late run and eventual wins you could have had a show that a lot of people would have been genuinely anticipating.  It just couldn't all come together.  Next year some art house movie will win and people will complain that the Oscars never go with anything with mass appeal.  Or a Marvel movie will win and the complaint will be that smaller movies are getting squeezed out.  I think we got the best of both worlds this year and still no one cared.  That's why I think they should just go full nerd with it.  

Edited March 29, 2022 by kiddo82

[Ms Blue Jay]

16 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I will give this year's producers credit for this, I liked how they brought out Wesley Snipes, Woody Harrelson, and Rosie Perez for White Men Can't Jump and John Travolta, Uma Thurman, and Samuel L Jackson for Pulp Fiction as presenters.  I thought was a cool way to honor the past and those stars without taking up any more time that pairing together two randos would have done.  More of that, please.

They should have given SLJ a clip show for his Governors' award.  The fact that they didn't was shameful.

[EtheltoTillie]

On 3/28/2022 at 6:46 AM, JustHereForFood said:

Is it still an unpopular opinion that Oscars are boring, overrated and unnecessary, or has it become mainstream opinion in past few years?

I actually have been hearing people say this for decades!

[Kel Varnsen]

On 3/29/2022 at 6:50 AM, kiddo82 said:

I think the Oscars ceremony is at a crossroads.  They either should go full nerd and embrace all the technical categories while getting rid of the performances and bits or go in the opposite direction.   As it stands, they are trying to do both and it pleases nobody

I feel like there needs to be two shows. Have the main Oscar show on ABC and make it a celeb fest. Give out just the awards for acting, directing, best song, best animated feature, the honorary award that Sam Jackson got and best picture (and maybe screen play). Have performances for the songs and instead of comedy skits have like behind the scenes promotional mini-featurettes for each best picture nominee to actually promote those movies. Make it two and a half hours and have either a 30 minute after show or make the show that files the Oscars a thing (like they do for the super bowl).

Then have a separate show for all the other awards that would normally be in the main show. Basically make it the movie geek Oscars. Put it on cable or a streaming service. Include the science and tech awards and maybe add some new awards like best casting, or best stunt or best voice performance or best trailer (I would be more interested in best trailer than best live action shorts). The Emmy's give away a crapload of awards that aren't in the main show, and you never hear complaints about TV cinematographers or editors not getting their awards during the main ceremony.

[kiddo82]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I feel like there needs to be two shows. Have the main Oscar show on ABC and make it a celeb fest. Give out just the awards for acting, directing, best song, best animated feature, the honorary award that Sam Jackson got and best picture (and maybe screen play). Have performances for the songs and instead of comedy skits have like behind the scenes promotional mini-featurettes for each best picture nominee to actually promote those movies. Make it two and a half hours and have either a 30 minute after show or make the show that files the Oscars a thing (like they do for the super bowl).

Then have a separate show for all the other awards that would normally be in the main show. Basically make it the movie geek Oscars. Put it on cable or a streaming service. Include the science and tech awards and maybe add some new awards like best casting, or best stunt or best voice performance or best trailer (I would be more interested in best trailer than best live action shorts). The Emmy's give away a crapload of awards that aren't in the main show, and you never hear complaints about TV cinematographers or editors not getting their awards during the main ceremony.

That seems to be the best idea so far.  The only barrier I could see is that if ABC/Disney was threatening to pull the plug on one show, I can't see them wanting to finance two shows.

 

My other pitch is to air the show as is on ABC.  Meanwhile, over on ESPN 2?  Manningcast Oscars style!

Edited March 31, 2022 by kiddo82

[Yogisbooboo64]

On 3/7/2022 at 1:22 PM, Wiendish Fitch said:

Timothy Dalton wasn't a bad James Bond.

Okay, maybe it's premature for me to state this, since I've only seen The Living Daylights (which isn't half bad) so far, but I think Dalton is a perfectly fine Bond.

You gotta see him in his best one, License to Kill.  I thought he was great in that, plus Gladys Knight's vocals was kick-ass.

 

[EtheltoTillie]

Coda:  decent but just a very well done after-school special. I found myself figuratively looking at my watch and turned it off halfway through. I will probably go back and watch the rest but I’m not in a rush. 
 

I had been rooting for Power of the Dog.  

Edited April 3, 2022 by EtheltoTillie

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 3/29/2022 at 5:50 AM, kiddo82 said:

no one can see CODA because it's only available on Apple. 

They could kick it old school and go to a theater.  They've put it back in theaters all over the country.

https://www.tributemovies.com/showtimes/CODA/155545/

[EtheltoTillie]

More on Coda:  I'm watching the second half and I'm just annoyed at the idiot plot syndrome.  Would the music teacher really be that unaware and not accommodating of her unusual family situation and schedule?  Calling her undisciplined is just ridiculous.

Edited April 4, 2022 by EtheltoTillie

[Spartan Girl]

*takes a deep breath*

Toy Story 4 did not ruin the ending of Toy Story 3, nor did it betray Woody and Buzz's friendship by not having them stay together "for infinity and beyond." Woody going off with Bo to help other lost toys find homes was a natural progression of his character, and was not putting his own happiness at the expense of his friends because even though they loved him, they weren't dependent on him as the leader. It's not like he abandoned friends that were in need of therapy or had any loose ends left hanging as the result of past actions. Bonnie was fine, his friends were fine, it was a happy yet bittersweet ending for everyone.

Thank you.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[festivus]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

It's not like he abandoned friends that were in need of therapy or had any loose ends left hanging as the result of past actions.

Lol.

My UO is that I liked Toy Story 4 better than 3. Not that I don't love all of them. I liked that Woody dealt with his changing role and moved on with his life. The key here is that he dealt with it. Not got some kind of magical do-over. A much better message to send. 

[EtheltoTillie]

My final word on Coda, if you will bear with me.  I got to the end of it.  I thought it got better toward the end, but her singing for the audition was mediocre!  She sang better elsewhere in the movie.  We didn't learn where the boyfriend was going to college--why not?  We didn't hear him audition and "choke," although we knew he really didn't want to do music.  Should not have left that thread loose. 

[Shannon L.]

Movies like CODA, Black Panther, Shang Chi, and Crazy Rich Asians are really important movies.  Hollywood needs to understand that deaf actors (there are others beyond Marlee Matlin), superhero movies with a cast that's primarily POC,  romances with casts that are primarily (or totally) POC, etc, can be very successful.  I agreed with Black Panther's and Shang-Chi's technical awards and thought that Crazy Rich Asians should have nominated for at least Set Design and Best Costumes, but BP being nominated for Best Picture?  I didn't care one way or the other.  I heard others say that CRA should have been nominated for Best Picture.  As much as I enjoyed the movie, I didn't agree.   CODA?  I really liked it and am glad that Troy Kostur won.  I also don't mind it winning for Best Adapted Screenplay.  I can understand the criticism that it didn't deserve Best Picture, but I'm almost always happy when the smaller, unexpected films beat out the front runners--especially when the front runners are long, drawn out artsy films-- so I can't say I'm too bothered by it.  But, the point remains, that Hollywood needs to look at these movies and start making more, or at the very least, be more diverse in their casting.

[Danny Franks]

22 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

CODA?  I really liked it and am glad that Troy Kostur won.  I also don't mind it winning for Best Adapted Screenplay.  I can understand the criticism that it didn't deserve Best Picture, but I'm almost always happy when the smaller, unexpected films beat out the front runners--especially when the front runners are long, drawn out artsy films-- so I can't say I'm too bothered by it.  But, the point remains, that Hollywood needs to look at these movies and start making more, or at the very least, be more diverse in their casting.

I haven't seen CODA yet, but when I look at the other Best Picture nominees, I somehow doubt this will be one of those years that people look back at and say, "how did that movie win ahead of this other one?"

[Hiyo]

Time will tell.

[JimmyJabloon]

I don’t love the Lord Of the Rings trilogy. They’re fine, but not as great as some people claim them to be. There are several moments that are just cringy. Also, why does Arwen talk like that? 
 

Also don’t understand why Harry Potter movies are suddenly held as this gold standard by the fandom. Every movie after the first two was bad imo.

[Ambrosefolly]

2 hours ago, JimmyJabloon said:

I don’t love the Lord Of the Rings trilogy. They’re fine, but not as great as some people claim them to be. There are several moments that are just cringy. Also, why does Arwen talk like that? 
 

Also don’t understand why Harry Potter movies are suddenly held as this gold standard by the fandom. Every movie after the first two was bad imo.

I can't stand the Harry Potter movies. 

[BlackberryJam]

I think the Harry Potter films and the Lord of the Rings films are fine. Nothing remarkable. Nothing worthy of a rewatch. They are fine, in the blandest sense of the word. I honestly couldn't differentiate one from the other, in either franchise. 

[JimmyJabloon]

The new batman movie was terrible. Too slow, too long, too pretentious and trying too hard.

[festivus]

I haven't seen it yet but I'm in no rush. I'm just not into the grimdark take on it. I know the Tim Burton films were style over substance but I vastly prefer them to any modern take on Batman. 

I also can't stand Robert Pattinson. Has nothing to do with Twilight, I only saw the first one and I don't remember much about it. It's because I can see him "acting" in everything else I've seen him in. Not a fan.

[GHScorpiosRule]

18 minutes ago, festivus said:

I haven't seen it yet but I'm in no rush. I'm just not into the grimdark take on it. I know the Tim Burton films were style over substance but I vastly prefer them to any modern take on Batman. 

I'm not opposed to a Dark, Dark Knight (See what I did there?) I enjoyed the first two Burton movies, but then came Bruce Timm's Batman: The Animated Series with Kevin!Fucking!Conroy! as Bats. THE BESTESTEST BATMAN EVAH, with Mark Hamill's Joker. Mold Broken, as far as I'm concerned.

Then came Nolan, with Christian Bale, and that one minute trailer had my jaw dropping and saying to myself: Finally! Someone got Batman RIGHT! And I wasn't disappointed when Batman Begins* came out, and even more thrilled with The Dark Knight. The final movie was such a vast disappointment.

*Casting of Katie Holmes and just the Rachel character. HATED HER and her sanctimonious preaching to Bruce; as IF she knew what his parents thought or that they'd be ashamed of him.

Hey this Is the Unpopular Opinions thread, yes?

24 minutes ago, festivus said:

I also can't stand Robert Pattinson. Has nothing to do with Twilight,

Ditto.

[festivus]

I was thinking about it and although I did like the first two Dark Knight movies, I never re-watch them because I can't stand Christian Bale either. Now there's an UO. Although I don't dislike Ben Affleck, I never watched his take because I hated the Henry Cavil Superman movie so much. So I guess I have problems more with the casting than the movies in most cases. While I'm here, I also can't stand Tom Hardy. Haven't even watched Venom.

[proserpina65]

On 4/15/2022 at 11:42 AM, JimmyJabloon said:

Every movie after the first two was bad imo.

Whereas I think the first one is pretty bad, the second one better only because of Jason Isaacs, and the rest improve from there.

[Spartan Girl]

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Then came Nolan, with Christian Bale, and that one minute trailer had my jaw dropping and saying to myself: Finally! Someone got Batman RIGHT! And I wasn't disappointed when Batman Begins* came out, and even more thrilled with The Dark Knight. The final movie was such a vast disappointment.

*Casting of Katie Holmes and just the Rachel character. HATED HER and her sanctimonious preaching to Bruce; as IF she knew what his parents thought or that they'd be ashamed of him.

Hey this Is the Unpopular Opinions thread, yes?

If that’s an unpopular opinion, I don’t want to be popular. 😀

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 hours ago, festivus said:

I never re-watch them because I can't stand Christian Bale either

I thought that was the popular opinion!😝 I adore Christian Bale. My mind had totally forgotten that he was the killer in the movie version of Shaft. And I hadn't seen American Psycho, either.

But I loathe Ben Affleck and was so majorly pissed that HE got cast as Bats.

But really; the movies just need to just dub in Kevin!Fucking!Conroy's! voice as Bats.

What? Whaaat?

Edited April 19, 2022 by GHScorpiosRule

[Spartan Girl]

8 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

But really; the movies just need to just dub in Kevin!Fucking!Conroy's! voice as Bats.

What? Whaaat?

That would work. Then I wouldn’t have to give a crap who gets cast as Batman as long as he sounds like Batman!