If It Wasn't For That One Thing: How Movies Could've Been Better

[Haleth]

The Hobbit should have been made to be what the book is... a silly story for kids, not an attempt to remake LOTR.  Jackson wouldn't have had to try so hard to differentiate the Dwarves, nor pad it with unnecessary storylines and characters, nor make it 9 hours long.  I guess I'm saying he should have done a live version of the Rankin Bass cartoon.  Maybe.

[Danny Franks]

Same here. If I were Ripley, I would have blown my brains out. Back to a third nightmare without a break. I love the Aliens franchise and wish they would go back and make a sequel with both Newt and that guy Hicks (Ripley's future boyfriend) still alive. Why kill them off in the first place even if the actors were not available?

 

I've never seen Alien 3. And the reason for that is that I learned Hicks and Newt died/were dead at the beginning. I really liked Hicks in Aliens, and while I didn't care for Newt, Ripley did, so unceremoniously killing them both off before the movie started really annoyed me.

 

Also, holy crap but does that movie have a weird cast list for an early 90s action movie. Pete Postlethwaite, Christopher Fairbank, Paul McGann, Brian Glover? Is this a scifi movie or a gritty TV drama about how the declining industrial base in northern England affected communities?

 

Where as I remember when I read the Hobbit, I honestly couldn't keep the dwarves straight. They all seemed the same to me and I frankly didn't care about them. I only saw the first Hobbit movie and it was okay. But again I really didn't care that much and never saw the sequels.

 

 

There were definitely too many dwarves in the book. On screen it's even harder to figure out who's who other than being able to say, 'oh, that's the one played by James Nesbitt' etc. But I didn't even get that far, having switched the movie off when they started throwing plates around and singing, because I was so embarrassed to be watching it. I thought the tone they were going for was a silly story for kids. There's no other explanation for including all the 'dwarves are so goofy' stuff.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Danny Franks

[methodwriter85]

I got around to seeing Age of Adeline...I really liked it, especially for the period costumes and the stunningly accurate Young Harrison Ford casting of Anthony Ingruber, but the romance between Ellis and Adaline just felt tepid. Honestly, I felt like she had more chemistry with Young/Old William than she did with his son. Michael Huisman is more than capable of generating chemistry with his on-screen partners, but not with Blake Lively. They really should have casted a guy she had better chemistry with.

Edited September 16, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Guest]

I really liked The Devil Wears Prada and have watched it multiple times.  However, I think the movie would have been so much better if Andy's friends/boyfriend hadn't been so awful.  Wanting her to quit the job when she was so close to the finish line, making her feel guilty for a trip to Paris (when as far as we know her boyfriend had never even met Emily), pouting because she missed a birthday for a mandatory work event, holding her phone away from her and almost getting her in trouble with her boss - couldn't they just be supportive?  She was working long hours for 1 year.  By urging her to quit partway through, she was throwing away the time she'd already put in.

[ChaseMCP]

God, I couldn't stand the friends in The Devil Wears Prada. Not to mention that during the "holding the phone away from her" scene I'm pretty sure Andy had just given them some free fancy purses, and their response was to risk getting her fired? Some friends. 

[magicdog]

I was hoping she'd dump her unsupportive boyfriend for the character played by Simon Baker.  There was no reason for her to continue with her circle of friends either, even after she'd move on from the magazine.

[BookWoman56]

I simply do not acknowledge Alien 3 at all, ever. It ruined everything in the first two films for me and is my personal equivalent of someone putting a postscript on "The Wizard of Oz" in which everyone died horribly moments later (and then later we get to watch their autopsies in clumsy "gothic" detail).  

 

(Weirdly enough, I actually kind of enjoyed Alien: Resurrection (I know, I know), but I simply look at it as an alt-universe kind of exploration. It doesn't bother me on the visceral level of Alien 3.)

In my universe, Alien 3 simply does not exist. It is not part of movie canon, ever. And I also liked Alien: Resurrection ok, obviously not on the level as the first two but it was reasonably well done.

 

For me, a lot of movies evoke a response of wanting to rewrite the ending. It’s weird but at times I feel compelled to re-watch those movies, because apparently my brain thinks that maybe this time, the ending that I loathe will be replaced by a different ending. I look forward to the day when you can buy a movie and just reprogram it with the ending you’d like to see and that should have been there if the script had been better.

One of those movies is Baby Boom, in which Diane Keaton plays a NYC exec who becomes the legal guardian of a baby when Keaton’s cousin and her husband die in an accident, leaving no other relatives. The baby completely disrupts both her personal and professional life. Her SO splits because he doesn’t want the responsibility; he’s not a dick about it but he just doesn’t like the lifestyle change a baby will bring.  At work, she is less focused than previously, has to spend some time with the baby instead of working insane hours every week, etc. and her slimy assistant uses this as a way to make her look bad to her major client and himself look good. It’s not overtly stated, but all this looks to happen in the space of a month or two. This is pre-FMLA, I believe, so she doesn’t have the option of taking time off to deal with the changes brought about by essentially adopting a child. Her boss calls her in to demote her and she resigns rather than accept the demotion.

Keaton and baby move to a place in Vermont, with an apple orchard,  that she had been interested in pre-baby, and she tries to deal with loss of income, no work life, etc. and feeling sorry for herself. She starts using the gazillion apples from her apple orchard to make homemade baby applesauce, ends up selling it locally and then realizes there’s a serious market for homemade upscale baby food. She uses her business skills to market the brand, grow the business, and achieve enough success that her former major client contacts her former company because he wants to buy her out. She goes to NYC to negotiate the deal and of course, former assistant and boss are now kissing her ass. She takes off for a few minutes to consider the offer and as she’s walking back to the conference room, she decides (wisely IMO) that she would rather remain independent and run her own company than sell her company and either return to her previous job or be some sort of exec in her former client’s company. And up to this point, I’m completely on board. Then the entire scene is ruined by the stupid speech she gives, which essentially comes down to her saying she wants to stay in Vermont because of her new love interest.

How about, you people treated me like shit because I needed a month or two to adjust to a major change in my life, completely disregarding all the previous successes I had had and the money I had made you? How about, why the hell would I come back to work for people who treated me like that when I can run my own company the way I want to? How about, if it had been a male exec who needed a month or two to deal with some personal issue, you’d have given him the time he needed and just gotten someone to assist him instead of acting as if his need to spend a little time each day at home rather than every waking hour in the office was some kind of betrayal? How about, your past behavior toward me demonstrated that I can’t trust you and I’m not enough of an idiot to trust you not to screw me over again?

No, instead of all those perfectly good reasons for her to decline the offer, it comes down to her blushingly admitting that she has a new BF she doesn’t want to leave. WTFF? I have to FF through the ending to the credits because that speech makes me want to hurl things at the screen.

[methodwriter85]

I loved 17 Again, but I really couldn't get over how much Matthew Perry didn't look a thing like Zac Efron. The only similarity they had was blue eyes and brown hair. And it doesn't help that Matthew Perry was a child actor, so we knew what he looked like at 17, and it sure as hell wasn't like Zac Efron.

 

They also could have done a better job with Leslie Mann's younger character actor.

[Ambrosefolly]

I love Matthew Perry, but Rob Lowe would have worked better as the older version of the character.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Ambrosefolly

[Crs97]

No, instead of all those perfectly good reasons for her to decline the offer, it comes down to her blushingly admitting that she has a new BF she doesn’t want to leave. WTFF? I have to FF through the ending to the credits because that speech makes me want to hurl things at the screen.

 

 

That bugs me as well, and my nitpick is that her child never ages.  I guess she managed to do all that work and travel and create a new, amazingly successful business in mere months.  Considering how much children grow that first year, it might only have been weeks.

[methodwriter85]

I love Matthew Perry, but Rob Lowe would have worked better as the older version of the character.

 

Yeah, Rob Lowe is about 7 years older than the character should have been, but he could have pulled it off well.

 

I mean, I love Matthew Perry too, but like I've said- Matthew Perry has been around since he was in his late teens. We know what he looked like then- a beefy, preppy jockish kind of guy.

[BW Manilowe]

Yeah, Rob Lowe is about 7 years older than the character should have been, but he could have pulled it off well.

I mean, I love Matthew Perry too, but like I've said- Matthew Perry has been around since he was in his late teens. We know what he looked like then- a beefy, preppy jockish kind of guy.

Rob Lowe will be 52 on St. Patrick's Day. I've never seen this movie--how old is the older character supposed to be?

[magicdog]

According to the Wiki entry of the film, the character was supposed to be 37 years old.  IRL, Matthew Perry was born in 1969 and was about 40 when he made the film.

 

My problem with that film was more about Perry's character saying no to the Big Leaguers who were courting him.  He could have still gone on with his plans and had the money to support his baby mama.  Heaven knows a lot of current college and NBA players do that now.  If he wasn't going to be a basketball star, not being courted by scouts who saw him as one of the next big players, then it would have made sense for him to alter his plans.  Even then, plenty of people manage to get their education and/or better opportunities despite having a family too soon.  It depends on many factors and it's a harder road, but definitely doable. 

[Bruinsfan]

I love Matthew Perry, but Rob Lowe would have worked better as the older version of the character.

If we're going just by looks and not necessarily comedic chops, Kavan Smith or Anthony Lemke would have been ideal to play an older Zac Efron.

[methodwriter85]

I do think Matthew Perry got casted in part to try and lure in the Gen Xers. Rob Lowe also has that name recognition and Gen Xer nostalgia appeal.

 

My other nitpick about he movie is that the character actually should have been 35, if he had a currently 17-year old daughter when he was 18-ish. There is some evidence that the movie actually takes place in 2007 instead of 2009 when it was released, because there's some date on a cell phone that says 2007, but eh. I kind of told myself that Matthew Perry and Leslie Mann had a 19-year old kid off in college somewhere.

[Trini]

Stardust. I remember watching this movie and loving everything -- except ... the two lead actors. Charlie Cox looked too old to play the character's age, and Claire Danes had this fake accent. Both are fine actors, but I thought they were seriously miscast, and had little chemistry with each other.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Trini

[proserpina65]

Stardust. I remember watching this movie and loving everything -- except ... the two lead actors. Charlie Cox looked too old to play the character's age, and Claire Danes had this fake accent. Both are fine actors, but I thought they were seriously miscast, and had little chemistry with each other.

That's funny, because this is one of the few projects where I've actually liked Claire Danes' performance, and I thought she and Charlie Cox had pretty good chemistry.  (In all honesty, though, the film belongs to Michelle Pfeiffer and Mark Strong, imo.) 

 

It's always interesting how different people can have almost diametrically opposed opinions of the same film.

[Amethyst]

I really liked The Devil Wears Prada and have watched it multiple times.  However, I think the movie would have been so much better if Andy's friends/boyfriend hadn't been so awful.  Wanting her to quit the job when she was so close to the finish line, making her feel guilty for a trip to Paris (when as far as we know her boyfriend had never even met Emily), pouting because she missed a birthday for a mandatory work event, holding her phone away from her and almost getting her in trouble with her boss - couldn't they just be supportive?  She was working long hours for 1 year.  By urging her to quit partway through, she was throwing away the time she'd already put in.

 

The playing with her phone stuff was pretty immature, but I get why they were upset with her behavior, especially Nate.  He basically tells Andy same thing that Miranda says at the end: that Andy is willing to sacrifice her integrity if it means getting the career she wants.  

 

The people who work at Runway live and breathe fashion; they don't put up with Miranda's demands because they like her, they put up with it because they want to be her someday.  It's mentioned several times that Andy didn't really "earn" the assistant position because while she's very smart, she feels that fashion is silly and beneath her.  Andy views Runway as a stepping-stone to something better in journalism and it's easy for her to make fun of the Runway girls and their behavior.  Meanwhile, everyone else repeats the running gag that "a million girls would kill for the job."

 

But Emily and Nigel genuinely respect Runway and the world it represents, which is why Andy getting the trip to Paris was such a blow for Emily, who had been working her ass off for months, but was ultimately pushed aside because Andy had a few tricks up her sleeve.  Granted, Miranda was much worse for putting Andy in that position to choose.  I think Miranda probably saw Andy as a kindred spirit of sorts, the kind of person would could handle Runway if Miranda ever chose to retire.

 

Nate wasn't bagging on Andy for going to Paris or for missing his birthday party, he was upset because she didn't want to take any responsibility for her actions.  Nate didn't care what Andy did for a living, as long as it meant something to her.  But it was easier to act like everything was being forced on her.  Those choices are difficult, but they're still hers to make.

[GreekGeek]

The mention of a bad accent above reminded me of another film that should have been better: One Day. I don't share the rabid hatred Anne Hathaway gets in some quarters, but she was miscast as Emma. Emma is supposed to be a working class woman from the north of England, and a left-wing scold. She also has an affair with the married headmaster of the school where she teaches. The movie made her into a bland Nice Girl, with a generic mid-Atlantic accent.

[Athena]

The movie made her into a bland Nice Girl, with a generic mid-Atlantic accent.

I liked the book and the rest of the cast was quite good, but Hathaway was the weak spot. It grated how her accent kept switching from scene to scene. It was all over the place. I read that the director did not want to cast her initially, but she loved the book and the part so much, she made a mixtape for her that somehow convinced him she was the right person for it.

[Bastet]

Oh, crap - A League of Their Own is on, and I am powerless to resist watching it -- despite the fact this (wonderful) film would be 100 times better if Dottie had HELD ONTO THE DAMN BALL and that crybaby Kit would have either finally grown the hell up or melted down into oblivion, and I do not give a shit which one.  Ugh, I hate Kit coming away a winner so much.  It never stops pissing me off, because the narrative trying to make me feel sorry for her whiny ass blows my mind. 

[topanga]

On 11/27/2014 at 10:47 AM, magicdog said:

In the film, Titanic (1997), I wished two major plot points had been changed:  first that Rose not be so eager to live a downwardly mobile lifestyle with Jack (do you know how tough it was to live poor in 1912??  Especially someone who'd never done manual labor in her life).  The second, that her finacee Cal Hockley hadn't been portrayed as such a jerk.  I would have found it far more satisfying if they had felt a bit apprehensive at their engagement (due to being pressured by Rose's mother), but Cal coming through by the film's end, watching their love blossom during the voyage.  Instead we got a rebellious rich girl going at in in the backseat of a car in the cargo hold!  Bah!!

I just re-watched Titanic with my family, and I couldn't agree with you more. And while the film show that Cal did love Rose (he didn't get on a lifeboat at the first opportunity but instead went to look for her), he was a caricature of a jerk. So of course Rose chose Jack; of course a life of poverty with Jack would be better than a life of wealth with Cal; of course, sex with Jack (and not Cal) would be smokin' hot. If Cal had been more of a 3-dimensional character that Rose liked but didn't love passionately, then her decision to stay with Jack might've been a more conflicted choice . And the audience might have felt sympathy for Cal, too.

[Bastet]

Or if she'd known Jack for more than five minutes. 

I hate that movie, because it takes something that needs absolutely no fictionalization to be compelling and puts at the centerpiece some stupid romance.  But maybe if it had been a relationship I could believe and thus get invested in and root for, I could have let that slide, because the movie is visually stunning and the scenes with passengers other than Jack and Rose are interesting. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

My favorite couple in Titanic are the old man and woman, tearfully spooning each other as their room is flooded. That's real love, my friends.

[FormerMod-a1]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

Or if she'd known Jack for more than five minutes. 

I hate that movie, because it takes something that needs absolutely no fictionalization to be compelling and puts at the centerpiece some stupid romance.  But maybe if it had been a relationship I could believe and thus get invested in and root for, I could have let that slide, because the movie is visually stunning and the scenes with passengers other than Jack and Rose are interesting. 

I enjoyed the movie as an entertaining drama, but I had this problem, too.  It didn't need a fictional story or couple as part of it.  I figured they could have found almost anyone of the real passenger's stories that hadn't already been told (e.g. Molly Brown) and used that and it would have been a real compelling story.

My other problem, given the story we did have, was Rose throwing that giant, expensive diamond into the bottom of the ocean.  I understand the symbolism, of course, but when I saw that scene I couldn't help but wonder, out loud to my friends even, why waste it like that.  She could at least have given it to a museum or something.

[Rick Kitchen]

Every Titanic story has had fictional characters at the center of the story, hasn't it?  Except for The Unsinkable Molly Brown, I guess.

[Crs97]

Quote

My favorite couple in Titanic are the old man and woman, tearfully spooning each other as their room is flooded. That's real love, my friends.

I always assumed they are based on Mr. and Mrs. Isador Straus.  He co-founded Macy's.  She refused to leave him behind.  He was offered a seat and refused to leave other women and children behind.  Instead, she gave her fur coat to her maid and had her take the spot on the lifeboat.  That is a story that could have been the centerpiece, but it would have screwed up the movie's narrative that the rich were evil and flawed while all the truly noble people were the ones in third class and steerage.

[methodwriter85]

Titanic is something that you really love when you're 12, but once you're no longer 12, you can really look at it and see just how vapid and shallow so much of it is. Still love to watch it, but it's hard not to think about how much better this could have been if the characters weren't cardboard cut-outs.

Edited May 20, 2016 by methodwriter85

[Wiendish Fitch]

I'm one of the weirdos who really liked the film version of Into the Woods, but every time I watch it (and this complaint extends to the stage version as well), I desperately wish the Baker and company had just sacrificed Jack to the giant. Seriously, I couldn't stand that stupid, useless, greedy kid, and I don't know they were so hellbent on saving him. After what he did to that poor giant, Jack completely deserved whatever awful fate that could come his way.

All right, you got me, I'm just beyond disenchanted with "Jack and the Beanstalk" in general, satisfied?

[methodwriter85]

Every time I looked at Kim Basinger in The Nice Guys, I was immediately drawn out of the 1977 time period due to her very, very modern-looking fillers/plastic surgery-influenced face. They should have cast someone who looks more natural playing a woman in her 50's or 60's in the 1970's.

[topanga]

On 5/20/2016 at 2:01 AM, methodwriter85 said:

Titanic is something that you really love when you're 12, but once you're no longer 12, you can really look at it and see just how vapid and shallow so much of it is. Still love to watch it, but it's hard not to think about how much better this could have been if the characters weren't cardboard cut-outs.

I was thinking this the other day when I watched it with my 12-year old son--who loved it. I still liked it, but certainly not as much as I did when I saw it at the movies..several times. I agree that the characters were the opposite of complex. Rose was a high-society (though penniless) entitled princess whose "woe is me" attitude grated my nerves. Jack's "live every day as it comes" was heralded as the secret to happiness. People who worked for a living or made plans were the bad guys. And Rose's fiancee was presented as someone we were supposed to hate. Yes, he was a somewhat arrogant prick, but there was nothing truly hate-worthy about him. He loved Rose, he was worried about her hooking up with Jack (which she did), and he worked hard. 

[DollEyes]

Quote

I agree that the characters [in Titanic] were the opposite of complex. Rose was a high-society (though penniless) entitled princess whose "woe is me" attitude grated my nerves. Jack's "live every day as it comes" was heralded as the secret to happiness. People who worked for a living or made plans were the bad guys. And Rose's fiancee was presented as someone we were supposed to hate. Yes, he was a somewhat arrogant prick, but there was nothing truly hate-worthy about him. He loved Rose, he was worried about her hooking up with Jack (which she did), and he worked hard. 

  I respectfully disagree. Because of her mother, Rose was basically pimped out and almost forced into a marriage of convenience for financial reasons. Jack's believing in living his life on his own terms didn't bother me a bit. The designer of the Titanic and the Captain weren't bad guys. As for Cal, IMO he was a domineering asshole who treated Rose like a possession every chance he got, plus he hit Rose. If Cal's emotional abuse didn't make him wrong for Rose, the physical abuse did. Rose's dumping Cal twice-first, with Jack's drawing for her, later by spitting in his face-were some of the best scenes in Titanic, as far as I'm concerned. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

I take serious umbrage to the ending of Here Comes Mr. Jordan. Even if you're not a classic movie buff, you probably know the story: a boxer named Joe Pendleton (Robert Montgomery) is killed off before his time, and needs to find a new body to inhabit to fulfill the duration of his time on earth. With the assistance of beatific head angel (I think that's what he is) Mr. Jordan (the invaluable Claude Rains), Joe takes over the body of a rich man....

Spoiler

 

...and eventually another boxer, in which he fulfills his destiny of becoming a champion. Seems like an okay note to end on, right? Well, in what's supposed to be a lighthearted, whimsical twist (but is in fact horrifically creepy), Mr. Jordan blithely proceeds to wipe clean Joe's memory of his former life, his personality, and indeed his identity. Yup, Joe Pendleton literally no longer exists, he is now the dude whose body he's taken over. Joe's life and memories are gone forever, and it's framed as a good thing.

WTF?!?!

Look, I'll admit I didn't like Joe very much; he's an inarticulate muscle-head (not to mention Montgomery looks too old, sedentary and doughy to be believable as a boxer on the rise), but that doesn't mean I wanted his identity erased! My God, that's horrifying! Even worse, Joe has no say in this, isn't allowed to protest or defend himself, Mr. Jordan makes it so and we're supposed to be happy about it! Terrible ending that ruined what could have a cute, diverting little comedy. 

 

[magicdog]

Quote

Spoiler

Mr. Jordan blithely proceeds to wipe clean Joe's memory of his former life, his personality, and indeed his identity. Yup, Joe Pendleton literally no longer exists, he is now the dude whose body he's taken over. Joe's life and memories are gone forever, and it's framed as a good thing.

 

I think the idea was that Joe would be able to freely live his life without the hangups that came with his old one or the mistake of dying too soon.  Not my favorite ending, but I understood it.

Edited July 12, 2016 by magicdog

[GHScorpiosRule]

On 5/14/2016 at 0:50 AM, Bastet said:

Oh, crap - A League of Their Own is on, and I am powerless to resist watching it -- despite the fact this (wonderful) film would be 100 times better if Dottie had HELD ONTO THE DAMN BALL and that crybaby Kit would have either finally grown the hell up or melted down into oblivion, and I do not give a shit which one.  Ugh, I hate Kit coming away a winner so much.  It never stops pissing me off, because the narrative trying to make me feel sorry for her whiny ass blows my mind. 

This movie was finally available for me to watch again, and I couldn't agree more with this! Kit was just so fucking insufferable. I got the feeling Dottie dropped the ball on purpose just so Kit would finally have a win.

And now that she did finally have a win? She's oh so gracious and wants Dottie to stay, when throughout the entire movie, she's done nothing but whine about how Dottie's presence and talent has prevented her (Kit) from winning. Not to mention her jealousy.  Dottie was the far superior player.

It was infuriating. I kept wishing for Dottie to yell at Kit to grow the fuck up. Or that she "let" her win. But I guess she had too much class to do that.

[Bastet]

Whether Dottie dropped the ball on purpose has been long debated, but I can't find anything where Marshall, Davis, etc. have commented.  The first time I saw the film, I thought she did, and I was so enraged that she would screw over her teammates for that insufferable brat of a sister, I didn't watch the film again for many years.  When I finally did come around, I took it the opposite way, and I think it's just the slowed-down effect of the drop that makes it look deliberate.  Plus, in the original cut of the film (which is something like a whopping four hours), Dottie is shown to be not just a great player, but a ruthless one.  And she went through the trouble to come back to play in the series when she'd originally been heading home (and didn't have any conflict about it; her husband was supportive and rooting for her).  In all, I just can't see her choosing to lose the championship.

There was originally (in that insanely long version) a lot more backstory for all the characters, so maybe Kit came off better in that one than she did in the final version.  But even if Kit was not such a shit, it is still such an odd narrative choice to me -- we spend pretty much the entire film with the Peaches, and then one of them splinters off to the Belles, a team we know and care nothing about, so why on earth is the victory given to one main character - who is not the main character; that's Dottie - and a bunch of nobodies, and every other main character is made to lose?  I'm often a fan of movies doing something different than what's expected, but not in this case.  

I still love the film (I own it on DVD, I watch it every time I come across it on TV), but, yeah -- if it wasn't for that one thing.

[LadyAmalthea]

I think whether or not Dottie dropped the ball on purpose is meant to be up to individual interpretation, I would be surprised if anyone commented officially one way or the other.  

Personally, I don't think she intentionally dropped the ball, but like she said to Kit later, Kit wanted it more and Dottie in that moment was not playing as ruthlessly as she had once done.  When we see Dottie in the same situation earlier when she holds onto the ball, its in her mitt and secure, when Kit rams into her she's holding it in her hand and through the force of the impact she dropped it.  But then when I first watched the film as a young girl with a perfect older sister I identified with Kit.  

[blueray]

Rogue one:

Spoiler

I really wish they didn't kill everyone off, have some of them live, even it was just the main two. I get that they wanted to explain why they "weren't" in the original trilogy but it's not like the couldn't have just been doing something else during that time.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Athena
Added spoiler tags

[dusang]

My complaint about Rogue One is how disorganized and half-assed the final plan was.  Like, I know we're not here for and not going to get Ocean's Wars or something but how could the rebellion not have a single operative embedded in any Empire facility?  How could Jyn and Cassian

Spoiler

lead most of the fighting forces of the rebellion into a dead-end trap without any back-up, any potential escape route, or even a schematic of the fucking installation they were infiltrating?  Successfully getting the intel would have been an absolutely Pyrrhic victory.

[mattie0808]

I can't possibly agree more with the folks who hate the end of A League of Their Own and Andy's jerk of a boyfriend/terrible friends in The Devil Wears Prada. I really enjoy both movies (hell, just flat-out love ALOTO), but those two things are insufferable. I've always thought Dottie dropped the ball on purpose, which is just so lame an ending. And Andy's friends? Come on. It's like she went into the job hating it, or disdaining it -- and heaven forbid she should find anything to like or enjoy about it; that she should react a little bit maturely to a job that, yes, "a million girls would kill for"; that she finds that she's good at it, and is pleased with that about herself; comes up with some grudging respect for her boss from hell who is the CEO of a major company in a zillion-dollar industry; and on and on. That they apparently hated their own jobs doesn't mean Andy is lacking personal integrity for coming around on hers. Aside from the childish keep-away with her phone -- which did happen after she gave them some cool gifts -- the thing I hate the most is Nate telling her oh-so-magnanimously that he wouldn't care if she was stripping (or something like that) as long as she did it with "integrity." Yeah, that's great. She's a straight-out-of-school assistant to a CEO in publishing and she wants to be a writer. Better to be a stripper, I guess? Especially if it means you won't be rewarded for your good work by getting a trip to Paris? Whatever.

Edited March 31, 2017 by mattie0808

[PepSinger]

Andy's friends and boyfriend are the fucking worst. I wanted Andy to sabotage all of their jobs in retaliation.

[methodwriter85]

I really enjoyed Sing Street, but I honestly wasn't down for the ending. I wish it had been more about these kids coming to terms and acceptance with the reality of their lives than

Spoiler

Spoiler

going off on some fantastical journey to London on a little boat.

 

I don't know, I really liked the realistic, downbeat ending of Once, and I wish the ending for Sing Street had been realistic.

[DisneyBoy]

I loved Once. that movie totally caught me off guard and moved me. And that last shot was beautiful...

I really enjoyed the movie version of the broadway musical Hairspray... except for nightmare-inducing John Travolta. He looked so freaky as a woman and it really bothered me that he was cast given his continual denial of any gay rumors and participation in the Church of Scientology. The role's traditionally played by a man and like it or not that automatically gives it an LGBT connection. I remember some interview Travolta gave where he shrugged it all off and said he just saw the character as a woman. It was pretty clear the character would never be "just a woman" and I was very uncomfortable with the way Travolta seemed to be winking at all those rumors while at the same time staunchly defending his masculinity.

But mostly I just thought he looked terrifying.

I can almost understand why he was cast, being a movie musical icon, but I so wish they had cast anybody else. In all honesty Fierstein probably should have played the part in the movie even though he's not as big a star.

It's a shame because the rest of the cast is wonderful but I just can't bring myself to watch the movie because of Travolta.

 

On a different note, I found myself really disappointed in Brave once the plot began revolving around the bear thing. I really thought Merida was going to get to go on some big quest the way a male character would and instead the story seemed to revolve entirely around her relationship with her Mommy. It felt kind of condescending that the scope of this big feminist (sort of) movie would be entirely around a girl and her mother with little room for anything else. Ariel's relationship with Triton was central to The Little Mermaid, but it still didn't stop her from actually, you know, having a life and a story and meeting other characters. People spoke about Brave like it was this big groundbreaking movie at the time when it really wasn't. I hope that they will make a sequel if only so that we can actually get a good adventure out of Merida. Given what happened with the director of the film, Brenda Chapman, I wonder if the studio would even try to make a sequel and potentially rock the boat by not involving her again.

I don't know if that counts as one thing the movie did wrong, but the plot took a very big and sudden turn and completely lost me.

Edited April 4, 2017 by DisneyBoy

[TigerLynx]

I didn't think Dottie dropped the ball on purpose.  I thought it was what she told Kit, that Kit had wanted it more.  I thought in the beginning when Dottie told her grandson his little brother would like to win sometimes to that it was because Dottie didn't realize how much she overshadowed Kit, and how bad Kit's jealousy was until they joined the League.  I was disappointed when the Peaches lost, but if Dottie dropped to ball on purpose that makes it so much worse.

[Dandesun]

I hate pretty much everyone in The Devil Wears Prada. Except Stanley Tucci. Everyone. They're all insufferable. Well, I don't fully despise Emily Blunt's character, either, mainly because she got screwed out of the Paris trip due to Andy's perfection. Andy's awful, her boyfriend is awful, her friends are awful, her temptation is awful, the twins are awful, Miranda's awful. All of them are fucking awful. I think the whole thing with the Harry Potter book is what completely sent me over the edge the first time I watched the movie. I mean, the fucking over-night makeover had me gritting my teeth, too, because I hate those sorts of scenes on principle. But the Harry Potter books... GAH!!

"I'm more important than anyone else in the world. Therefore, my spoiled brats require a highly anticipated and sought after book before everyone else because I say so. That's how important I am. Oh, and they don't share so you have to get two copies of this book you can't actually get. And if you can't do this impossible task, you're worthless and obviously fired."

I think I said out loud to the TV "Of fuck you, you fucking self-important, privileged beast!" I was delighted when Miranda's husband left her. And her laments about her failures in marriage did nothing to curb my delight. I know one can easily excuse her in that being a powerful woman results in such sexism and "power imbalances" in her relationship but she was just so fucking awful as a human that I honestly didn't care about that.

Plus, she screwed over Stanley Tucci. Fuck her. Fuck ALL of them.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

7 hours ago, DisneyBoy said:

I really enjoyed the movie version of the broadway musical Hairspray... except for nightmare-inducing John Travolta. He looked so freaky as a woman and it really bothered me that he was cast given his continual denial of any gay rumors and participation in the Church of Scientology. The role's traditionally played by a man and like it or not that automatically gives it an LGBT connection. I remember some interview Travolta gave where he shrugged it all off and said he just saw the character as a woman. It was pretty clear the character would never be "just a woman" and I was very uncomfortable with the way Travolta seemed to be winking at all those rumors while at the same time staunchly defending his masculinity.

But mostly I just thought he looked terrifying.

I can almost understand why he was cast, being a movie musical icon, but I so wish they had cast anybody else. In all honesty Fierstein probably should have played the part in the movie even though he's not as big a star.

It's a shame because the rest of the cast is wonderful but I just can't bring myself to watch the movie because of Travolta.

FWIW, Edna Turnblad in the John Waters version of Hairspray was played by the late Harris Glen Milstead, AKA Divine. So in that sense, casting Travolta as a man playing a woman was fully in keeping with the spirit of the original movie. And fully as scary, since the late Mr. Milstead was six-two and often played women in Waters' movies.

[Dandesun]

8 hours ago, DisneyBoy said:

On a different note, I found myself really disappointed in Brave once the plot began revolving around the bear thing. I really thought Merida was going to get to go on some big quest the way a male character would and instead the story seemed to revolve entirely around her relationship with her Mommy. It felt kind of condescending that the scope of this big feminist (sort of) movie would be entirely around a girl and her mother with little room for anything else. Ariel's relationship with Triton was central to The Little Mermaid, but it still didn't stop her from actually, you know, having a life and a story and meeting other characters. People spoke about Brave like it was this big groundbreaking movie at the time when it really wasn't. I hope that they will make a sequel if only so that we can actually get a good adventure out of Merida. Given what happened with the director of the film, Brenda Chapman, I wonder if the studio would even try to make a sequel and potentially rock the boat by not involving her again.

I don't know if that counts as one thing the movie did wrong, but the plot took a very big and sudden turn and completely lost me.

Brave is about a relationship between a daughter and her mother and it actually is pretty damn feminist because it's about two women and their relationship to each other despite their very obvious differences. What's more, a mother/daughter relationship is never the focus. If you go back through the Disney archives the mother is usually dead and the relationship that remains is the daughter and her step-mother (which is pretty much always the step-mother abusing the daughter) or the daughter and her father.

Snow White? No mother.

Cinderella? No mother.

Sleeping Beauty? Mother has minimal interaction with her daughter and one line in the whole movie. Really, it's a story that's barely about Aurora. It's about the three fairies vs. Maleficent with Aurora as a walking MacGuffin.

Beauty and the Beast? No mother.

Little Mermaid? No mother.

Pocahontas? No mother.

Mulan? She does it all for her father.

Atlantis: The Lost Empire? No mother.

Lilo & Stitch? No parents, the relationship between Lilo and Nani was the one that mattered, though. That was nice.

The Princess and the Frog? While the mother was there, Tiana's dreams were built mostly around her relationship with her father.

Tangled? Abusive relationship with her kidnapper.

To finally have a daughter/mother relationship be the focus of the story. Two characters with a complex relationship with each other that grows more complex and the entire crux of the story is them coming to understand one another... yeah, that meant a lot to me. Merida did go on a quest... it just wasn't exactly what she thought it would be. That's often how those work.

[Popples]

10 hours ago, DisneyBoy said:

I really enjoyed the movie version of the broadway musical Hairspray... except for nightmare-inducing John Travolta. He looked so freaky as a woman and it really bothered me that he was cast given his continual denial of any gay rumors and participation in the Church of Scientology. The role's traditionally played by a man and like it or not that automatically gives it an LGBT connection. I remember some interview Travolta gave where he shrugged it all off and said he just saw the character as a woman. It was pretty clear the character would never be "just a woman" and I was very uncomfortable with the way Travolta seemed to be winking at all those rumors while at the same time staunchly defending his masculinity.

But mostly I just thought he looked terrifying.

I can almost understand why he was cast, being a movie musical icon, but I so wish they had cast anybody else. In all honesty Fierstein probably should have played the part in the movie even though he's not as big a star.

It's a shame because the rest of the cast is wonderful but I just can't bring myself to watch the movie because of Travolta.

I have yet to sit through the entire thing, because John Travolta looks so damn off-putting. It totally should have been Harvey Fierstein! I know Travolta is the bigger name, but was there actually anyone on the fence of whether to see it or not that was swayed because he was in it? I doubt it. Or just cast another fat man to do it (like they do on Broadway). The make-up they use definitely veers into Uncanny Valley.

3 hours ago, Dandesun said:

Plus, she screwed over Stanley Tucci. Fuck her. Fuck ALL of them.

On re-watches, I feel so badly for him when he gets excited and talks about how he'll finally actually get to see Paris, despite having gone so many times, and it all just gets yanked out from underneath him.

[ChelseaNH]

Travolta also played Edna as very girly, which goes against the grain of the performances by both Divine and Harvey Fierstein.  I think that's why Christopher Walken's Wilbur was more courtly -- making the parents more genteel than John Waters presumably intended.

[dusang]

On 4/4/2017 at 9:40 AM, DisneyBoy said:

I really enjoyed the movie version of the broadway musical Hairspray... except for nightmare-inducing John Travolta. He looked so freaky as a woman and it really bothered me that he was cast given his continual denial of any gay rumors and participation in the Church of Scientology. The role's traditionally played by a man and like it or not that automatically gives it an LGBT connection. I remember some interview Travolta gave where he shrugged it all off and said he just saw the character as a woman. It was pretty clear the character would never be "just a woman" and I was very uncomfortable with the way Travolta seemed to be winking at all those rumors while at the same time staunchly defending his masculinity.

I haven't seen any version of the film but isn't Edna Tracy's mom?  So the character is "just a woman" and the LGBTQ+ connection is intentionally meta?

21 hours ago, Dandesun said:

I hate pretty much everyone in The Devil Wears Prada. Except Stanley Tucci. Everyone. They're all insufferable. Well, I don't fully despise Emily Blunt's character, either, mainly because she got screwed out of the Paris trip due to Andy's perfection. Andy's awful, her boyfriend is awful, her friends are awful, her temptation is awful, the twins are awful, Miranda's awful. All of them are fucking awful. I think the whole thing with the Harry Potter book is what completely sent me over the edge the first time I watched the movie. I mean, the fucking over-night makeover had me gritting my teeth, too, because I hate those sorts of scenes on principle. But the Harry Potter books... GAH!!

"I'm more important than anyone else in the world. Therefore, my spoiled brats require a highly anticipated and sought after book before everyone else because I say so. That's how important I am. Oh, and they don't share so you have to get two copies of this book you can't actually get. And if you can't do this impossible task, you're worthless and obviously fired."

I think I said out loud to the TV "Of fuck you, you fucking self-important, privileged beast!" I was delighted when Miranda's husband left her. And her laments about her failures in marriage did nothing to curb my delight. I know one can easily excuse her in that being a powerful woman results in such sexism and "power imbalances" in her relationship but she was just so fucking awful as a human that I honestly didn't care about that.

Plus, she screwed over Stanley Tucci. Fuck her. Fuck ALL of them.

Everything you've said is true but all of those things were so much worse in the book, which is one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever read (and I have read some trash), that by comparison I absolutely adore the movie.