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

[Ms Blue Jay]

"Bridesmaids" and the shitting their pants scene, which I hate, hate hate and always have to fast-forward.

Entertainment Weekly just came out with an "Untold story" about the movie where the director cut a scene of Paul Rudd as a psychotic ice dancer or something that goes on a blind date with Kristen Wiig's character.  Seriously you fucking insisted on the pants-shitting scene instead of THAT?  

[Browncoat]

38 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

"Bridesmaids" and the shitting their pants scene, which I hate, hate hate and always have to fast-forward.

I hate that scene, too, and never really understood why it was considered so edgy and progressive.

[Dandesun]

Just now, Browncoat said:

I hate that scene, too, and never really understood why it was considered so edgy and progressive.

It's women! Shitting themselves! That sort of humor is generally reserved for duded, I guess.

[Ms Blue Jay]

It's not edgy or progressive.  To me it's incredibly regressive.  The people behind the movie were just SO TERRIFIED to try and release a comedy with only women as the leading characters and as a way to appease the male audience they put that stupid fucking scene in.  That's how I view it.  Some men HATE pop culture not directed right at them (Twilight, 50 Shades, SATC) and I'm not saying that's how all or even most men feel, just that that's what the people behind the movie were so fucking terrified of.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Some men HATE pop culture not directed right at them (Twilight, 50 Shades, SATC) and I'm not saying that's how all or even most men feel, just that that's what the people behind the movie were so fucking terrified of.

Well...

I'm not entirely sure that's the premise you want to go forward with, or at least not the examples you want to use. Because can we at least admit that in two out of those three, even the fanboys would have had it right?

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 hours ago, Dandesun said:

It's women! Shitting themselves! That sort of humor is generally reserved for duded, I guess.

That scene is breathtakingly unfunny, and what annoys me most is that it expects the audience to be shocked-SHOCKED, I say!- that women have bodily functions. There's no wit or satire here, as if they're mocking the attitude that women simply don't have bodily functions, they're actively engaging in it. Newsflash screenwriters: we women burp, puke, fart, piss, poo, and all sorts of gross stuff that every fucking human being on the planet does! Get over it!

Quote

Entertainment Weekly just came out with an "Untold story" about the movie where the director cut a scene of Paul Rudd as a psychotic ice dancer or something that goes on a blind date with Kristen Wiig's character.  Seriously you fucking insisted on the pants-shitting scene instead of THAT?  

 

I second this! Seriously, there's way more potential for humor in that than the sophomoric shitting scene!

[supposebly]

3 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

That scene is breathtakingly unfunny, and what annoys me most is that it expects the audience to be shocked-SHOCKED, I say!- that women have bodily functions. There's no wit or satire here, as if they're mocking the attitude that women simply don't have bodily functions, they're actively engaging in it. Newsflash screenwriters: we women burp, puke, fart, piss, poo, and all sorts of gross stuff that every fucking human being on the planet does! Get over it!

Thank you! I never understood why people find it so funny. If it was supposed to be shocking, well it wasn't. Other than that, poo humor goes where most humor about bodily functions goes for me. Nowhere good, and certainly nowhere funny.

[Princess Sparkle]

Apparently, the pants shitting scene was not in the original script and was something Judd Apatow suggested and insisted they add, and Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumlo finally acquiesced. I wish they hadn't, because that scene sticks out like a sore thumb. 

[DisneyBoy]

Quote

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?

In the world of the movie the character is just a woman... but to all of us in reality, we know the character's traditionally played by a man in drag, and that informs a big part of the show's appeal. Hairspray is about acceptance for everyone regardless of skin color or body shape. There are no gay characters in the story that I recall, but having Tracy's mom be played by a man automatically creates a "gay" character for the audience to enjoy and support. Travolta coyly acting as though that whole level to the performance was non-existent weirds me out because there's no way he's that stupid. I'm not sure why he took on the role at all if he is so staunchly straight. And yes, I can imagine a man playing a female role just for fun and it not being some kind of LGBT commentary...but John Travolta is just too loaded a person to be playing that kind of role and the role of Edna is way too loaded a role.

And again, he looked completely freaky in the makeup, kind of like a garbage pail kid.

It's a real shame because I love the rest of the cast of the movie. I still have to watch the Live version. Maybe that will be the one I prefer.

Quote

There's no wit or satire here, as if they're mocking the attitude that women simply don't have bodily functions, they're actively engaging in it. 

I didn't double over with laughter during that scene, but I did find two moments rather funny. Okay, three. When Melissa McCarthy's character is on the sink and tells the other woman to "look away!" that got a bit of a chuckle. When Maya Rudolph's character is running into the street and just crumples and says "...it's happening!", that was also kind of funny for me. But the best part of the sequence is when Kristin Wiig is standing there sweating and being offered a Jordan Almond all the while completely denying that there's anything wrong with the food they just ate. That was very well performed and funny.

I agree that potty humor isn't my favorite and sometimes feels completely unnecessary, but I don't think this sequence stands out too sorely from the rest of the film.

Edited April 6, 2017 by DisneyBoy

[Wiendish Fitch]

You know what would have made Justice League not just more successful, but a legit masterpiece? Have this for a scene:

Diana (lassos Bruce with the Golden Lasso of Truth): This lasso compels you to tell the truth! Tell us everything!

Flash: Yeah, like why you're such an asshole!

Bruce (makes a show of resistance): Ugggh... okay, you know something? I almost never think about my parents anymore. In fact, I haven't given them much thought since I hit puberty. How can I? I've lived more of my life without them than with them! I just like to trot them out as an excuse for my actions if someone questions me or calls me out on my shit. Also, women are more likely to sleep with me if they hear about my dead parents, but you know what? Selina Kyle- she's Catwoman, you know- , love of my life, stopped returning my calls! That hurts. I wanted to kill Superman not because I thought he was dangerous -obviously he wasn't- but because he's young, good looking, has a girlfriend, a meaningful profession, and what am I? 45- 45, PEOPLE!!- with gray hair, a beer belly that won't go away, fabulous wealth I don't deserve and therefore don't care about, I haven't had sex in two presidencies, and my only friend is my aging butler, who cut my meat for me until I was 16! He'll only iron my underwear if I pay him overtime! Y'know, Alfred once blackmailed me for a weekend off because he caught me crying over Steel Magnolias! And...

Aquaman: Jeez, this is getting pathetic.

Cyborg: And boring.

Diana: Just one more thing, Bruce... tell us who you really are.

Bruce: A middle-aged man hiding his his withering insecurities behind the guise of righteousness and a goofy costume he's getting too tubby for, and who tried to kill Superman out of jealousy, and has unexamined, borderline narcissistic behavior patterns.

Diana: Good enough for me (punches Bruce in the face before un-lassoing him).

[HawkeyeLo]

On the Hobbit movies, because I rewatched them for the first time a few months ago:

They are not good, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to watch them. But I think the number one issue is that they forgot it was Bilbo's story. He got more and more sidelined in favor of elf-dwarf romance, Legolas doing action things, and Thorin-main Orc fight (I didn't mind the Gandalf sidebars because that does happen off-scene in the book and I'll watch those actors do pretty much anything, but I agree they could've been done better). LOTR was actually an ensemble story, so it worked there, but the Hobbit is supposed to be Bilbo's journey, and they got away from that too much.

The most frustrating thing is that they cast the perfect Bilbo--Martin Freeman was fantastic in the role--so his scenes are great. Major missed opportunity, in my opinion (though I did enjoy the armored mountain goats that appear out of nowhere in the third one).

Edited January 2, 2018 by HawkeyeLo

[dusang]

2 hours ago, HawkeyeLo said:

On the Hobbit movies, because I rewatched them for the first time a few months ago:

They are not good, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to watch them. But I think the number one issue is that they forgot it was Bilbo's story. He got more and more sidelined in favor of elf-dwarf romance, Legolas doing action things, and Thorin-main Orc fight (I didn't mind the Gandalf sidebars because that does happen off-scene in the book and I'll watch those actors do pretty much anything, but I agree they could've been done better). LOTR was actually an ensemble story, so it worked there, but the Hobbit is supposed to be Bilbo's journey, and they got away from that too much.

The most frustrating thing is that they cast the perfect Bilbo--Martin Freeman was fantastic in the role--so his scenes are great. Major missed opportunity, in my opinion (though I did enjoy the armored mountain goats that appear out of nowhere in the third one).

I saw all of them in theatre but only the second one in 3D (I generally avoid 3D screenings).  When the first one came out, my friend complained about how cheap everything looked and I didn't understand what she meant but when I saw the second one in 3D I could barely concentrate on the story for how terrible the image looked.  There were scenes where they were on a mountain and I swear to God it looked like they were in the scrub on the side of an LA parking lot.  I know they were in New Zealand, probably literally on a mountain, and still the image looked like Faerie Tale Theatre.  I couldn't understand it.

[Spartan Girl]

The infamous Hoth kiss in Empire Strikes Back. 

[Danny Franks]

4 hours ago, dusang said:

I saw all of them in theatre but only the second one in 3D (I generally avoid 3D screenings).  When the first one came out, my friend complained about how cheap everything looked and I didn't understand what she meant but when I saw the second one in 3D I could barely concentrate on the story for how terrible the image looked.  There were scenes where they were on a mountain and I swear to God it looked like they were in the scrub on the side of an LA parking lot.  I know they were in New Zealand, probably literally on a mountain, and still the image looked like Faerie Tale Theatre.  I couldn't understand it.

Supposedly, a large part of the reason for that is that they were shot at 48 frames-per-second instead of the usual 24 frames-per-second. I don't understand the science, but apparently filming at a higher frame rate reduces the amount of light that gets to the human eye. So to compensate, the sets had to be very brightly lit, the costumes had to be very vividly coloured. And I would assume there was also a huge amount of digital grading tinkering in the editing suite.

I hate the look of those Hobbit movies, to the extent that I've never watched one in its entirety. Everything looks too smooth, the environments look too shallow, and the characters pop off the screen too much. One critic, Todd McCarthy of the Hollywood Reporter, described it as:

Quote

“ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film an oddly theatrical look.”

That seems like a spot on description of what I feel like I'm seeing when I try to watch them.

[methodwriter85]

I had the chance to see failed Oscar bait Rebel in the Rye, where Nicholas Hoult played J.D. Salinger. Honestly, I think they had something really good there, but the movie should have covered a narrower window of JD's life. I feel like they brushed over J.D.'s time in World War II in order to cover his life from the early 40's until his retirement from writing in the mid-60's, and it was a mistake. Nicholas Hoult can still pull off college, but he can't pull off being a man in his mid-40's. I feel like they should have ended with him turning in the manuscript for Catcher in the Rye and expanded his mental breakdown after World War II.

They might have been screwed anyway with Kevin Spacey being in the main supporting actor part but I still think it could have had a legitimate shot at awards season if they had done that.

Edited January 3, 2018 by methodwriter85

[Spartan Girl]

I might have liked Shape of Water if it wasn't for the fish mutant killing those poor cats. I'm very petty when it comes to pets in movies. I don't care that he was a wild animal or how lovely the strange romance was, eating someone else's pet is a big no-no for me. I mean, who would you feel if it was your cat?!

[Bill1978]

For me, it will always be Frozen. I understand what they were going for, but the Hans reveal will always disappoint me and feel empty. I think they should have stuck to the original plan and have Elsa be the misunderstood 'villain', Let It Go still works as a 'villain' song. Anna's situation and sisterly love still saves Elsa etc. And the Duke of Weaselton remains the stereotypical power hungry old codger after the throne. Hans and Anna both discover they aren't really in love when he kisses her and they both escape trying to save Elsa from the Duke's men.

For all the praise Disney gets for subverting the Hans/Anna love thing, Anna still ends up with a man she just met. So the Hans twist in the end feels extremely shallow and petty.

[ChelseaNH]

16 hours ago, Bill1978 said:

Anna still ends up with a man she just met

Were they engaged?  I missed that part.

[Spartan Girl]

Three Men and A Baby was on TV this weekend, and I still love it as much as I ever did. However, the one little thing that bugs me was how Sylvia just breezed on in and took Mary back without stopping to consider how much Jack had bonded with her over the past weeks/months. She doesn't even talk about letting Jack be a part of Mary's life until after the Big Dramatic Airplane Chase scene. It was just, "Sorry I left her, but I'm taking her back to England. Thanks for everything, bye."

[ChelseaNH]

Jack didn't talk about wanting to be a part of Mary's life.  I didn't see anything breezy about their interactions; there was a whole of of awkward in those conversations.

[Spartan Girl]

Well, I would think it goes without saying when you leave a baby with one parent for weeks/months and let them get attached to each other, you can't just assume that you can take back the child without giving them an opportunity to remain a part of their life.  It's just common sensitivity.

[ChelseaNH]

But then you don't have a race-to-the-airport scene, so how do you end the movie?

[tennisgurl]

On 4/12/2018 at 7:50 PM, Bill1978 said:

or me, it will always be Frozen. I understand what they were going for, but the Hans reveal will always disappoint me and feel empty. I think they should have stuck to the original plan and have Elsa be the misunderstood 'villain', Let It Go still works as a 'villain' song.

See, I think they shouldn't have even had a "villain" beyond the slimy Duke of Weaselton, who is more there to escalate the drama. Let it be that Hans really does like Anna and want to marry her, and is a decent guy, and everything goes just the way it does in the movie. Elsa accidentally starts an eternal Winter, runs off, Anna is still dying of the cold spell. But, when Hans kisses her, it just doesn't work. Its not that he`s an evil mastermind, he`s a good person who cares about Anna, but he isnt in love with her. They've only known each other for a day, and maybe he just isnt the one?  Then Elsa can still kiss her to save her life in an act of true love (maybe more Weaselton goons can show up to create more action?) and we basically get the same climax, but without the melodrama of Hans being a sociopathic monster with zero foreshadowing. She can still end up with Kristoff with Elsa as queen, but with Hans leaving on a good note instead. Really, I think thats a better moral for the movie, that clearly wanted to subvert typical "Disney" tropes. Hans wasn't her true love, not because they weren't good people, but because they weren't right for each other, and hadn't known each other enough to fall in love. I think thats a much better, more true to life moral for the kids. I mean, not many people find out the person they've fallen for are supervillains, but its very common to rush into a relationship with someone you dont know very well, only to realize you arent right for each other, or moved too fast. Not because anyone is evil, but just because you arent right for each other, or love someone else. I guess Disney felt they "needed" more of a villain, but I thought it was unneeded drama that distracted from Elsa and Annas character development. It would have worked better if the real villain was Elsa's inability to control her powers, and that finding the way to control them and save her sister and kingdom was the best way to defeat the villain. Hans being evil just added nothing to the story besides them needing someone to cackle evilly in the third act.  

Edited April 19, 2018 by tennisgurl

[Bill1978]

26 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Elsa accidentally starts an eternal Winter, runs off, Anna is still dying of the cold spell. But, when Hans kisses her, it just doesn't work. Its not that he`s an evil mastermind, he`s a good person who cares about Anna, but he isnt in love with her. They've only known each other for a day, and maybe he just isnt the one?  Then Elsa can still kiss her to save her life in an act of true love (maybe more Weaselton goons can show up to create more action?) and we basically get the same climax, but without the melodrama of Hans being a sociopathic monster with zero foreshadowing. She can still end up with Kristoff with Elsa as queen, but with Hans leaving on a good note instead. Really, I think thats a better moral for the movie, that clearly wanted to subvert typical "Disney" tropes. Hans wasn't her true love, not because they weren't good people, but because they weren't right for each other, and hadn't known each other enough to fall in love. I think thats a much better, more true to life moral for the kids. 

Thank you for putting into words what my brain was thinking but couldn't articulate well. That's exactly how I would have liked the film to end.

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

See, I think they shouldn't have even had a "villain" beyond the slimy Duke of Weaselton, who is more there to escalate the drama. Let it be that Hans really does like Anna and want to marry her, and is a decent guy, and everything goes just the way it does in the movie. Elsa accidentally starts an eternal Winter, runs off, Anna is still dying of the cold spell. But, when Hans kisses her, it just doesn't work. Its not that he`s an evil mastermind, he`s a good person who cares about Anna, but he isnt in love with her. They've only known each other for a day, and maybe he just isnt the one?  Then Elsa can still kiss her to save her life in an act of true love (maybe more Weaselton goons can show up to create more action?) and we basically get the same climax, but without the melodrama of Hans being a sociopathic monster with zero foreshadowing. She can still end up with Kristoff with Elsa as queen, but with Hans leaving on a good note instead. Really, I think thats a better moral for the movie, that clearly wanted to subvert typical "Disney" tropes. Hans wasn't her true love, not because they weren't good people, but because they weren't right for each other, and hadn't known each other enough to fall in love. I think thats a much better, more true to life moral for the kids. I mean, not many people find out the person they've fallen for are supervillains, but its very common to rush into a relationship with someone you dont know very well, only to realize you arent right for each other, or moved too fast. Not because anyone is evil, but just because you arent right for each other, or love someone else. I guess Disney felt they "needed" more of a villain, but I thought it was unneeded drama that distracted from Elsa and Annas character development. It would have worked better if the real villain was Elsa's inability to control her powers, and that finding the way to control them and save her sister and kingdom was the best way to defeat the villain. Hans being evil just added nothing to the story besides them needing someone to cackle evilly in the third act.  

I wish they had done this. They really didn't need Hans to be a villain. It would have been really nice if Hans and Anna decided they weren't right for each other or didn't know each other. That really would have been a good message to kids. If they really need a villain they could have gone with the Duke.     

[Danny Franks]

On 16/04/2018 at 10:31 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Three Men and A Baby was on TV this weekend, and I still love it as much as I ever did. However, the one little thing that bugs me was how Sylvia just breezed on in and took Mary back without stopping to consider how much Jack had bonded with her over the past weeks/months. She doesn't even talk about letting Jack be a part of Mary's life until after the Big Dramatic Airplane Chase scene. It was just, "Sorry I left her, but I'm taking her back to England. Thanks for everything, bye."

The sequel is also pretty bad in that respect. "I know you three guys have effectively been joint fathers to my daughter for her entire life, but I met a rich English guy so... see ya!

But Three Men and A Baby is such a perfectly cast movie. Ted Danson, Steve Gutenberg and Tom Selleck, all in one movie? How did they ever manage to harness that much charm and sheer likability?

[Spartan Girl]

I love Aladdin. It's my favorite Disney cartoon, and to me, it's perfect.  Except for this one itsy-bitsy teeny-tiny little hiccup:

Jasmine getting so pissy when she finds out Aladdin is the boy she met at the marketplace -- the boy she thought was executed because of her. I mean, I get her being upset about lying to, but really?! THAT is her first reaction? She's not happy or relieved that he didn't get beheaded? She isn't confused or wanting to know what happened? She's going to skip right to being mad at him for supposedly lying before getting the whole story?

It's handled much better in the Broadway musical version. After the ANW number she reveals that she knows who she is, but isn't mad; she's glad that he's still alive and just calmly asks him to tell the truth afterward. So maybe the upcoming live action can tweak it too?

Edited May 17, 2018 by Spartan Girl

[magicdog]

Re Hans in "Frozen":

I never got why he was the villan either if only to subvert the audience.  However Hans had plenty of opportunities to kill Elsa but chose not to.  I think he was not supposed to be the villian initially since the scripts and stories for Frozen changed so many times before it was released.

 

This video has the theory in depth:

[NutMeg]

On 4/19/2018 at 4:32 AM, tennisgurl said:

See, I think they shouldn't have even had a "villain" beyond the slimy Duke of Weaselton, who is more there to escalate the drama. Let it be that Hans really does like Anna and want to marry her, and is a decent guy, and everything goes just the way it does in the movie. Elsa accidentally starts an eternal Winter, runs off, Anna is still dying of the cold spell. But, when Hans kisses her, it just doesn't work. Its not that he`s an evil mastermind, he`s a good person who cares about Anna, but he isnt in love with her. They've only known each other for a day, and maybe he just isnt the one?  Then Elsa can still kiss her to save her life in an act of true love (maybe more Weaselton goons can show up to create more action?) and we basically get the same climax, but without the melodrama of Hans being a sociopathic monster with zero foreshadowing. She can still end up with Kristoff with Elsa as queen, but with Hans leaving on a good note instead. Really, I think thats a better moral for the movie, that clearly wanted to subvert typical "Disney" tropes. Hans wasn't her true love, not because they weren't good people, but because they weren't right for each other, and hadn't known each other enough to fall in love. I think thats a much better, more true to life moral for the kids. I mean, not many people find out the person they've fallen for are supervillains, but its very common to rush into a relationship with someone you dont know very well, only to realize you arent right for each other, or moved too fast. Not because anyone is evil, but just because you arent right for each other, or love someone else. I guess Disney felt they "needed" more of a villain, but I thought it was unneeded drama that distracted from Elsa and Annas character development. It would have worked better if the real villain was Elsa's inability to control her powers, and that finding the way to control them and save her sister and kingdom was the best way to defeat the villain. Hans being evil just added nothing to the story besides them needing someone to cackle evilly in the third act.  

I must be the only person not to have seen Frozen, but I second the sentiment. I thought the same about Gaston in Beauty and the Beast - he could have been the heartthrob of the village and a nice guy, and someone Belle liked, but was not in love with. And the battle at the end would have been at least as good, if not more so, if the Beast just gave up and withered because he thought Belle was not coming back, as in the book (IIRC). 

[ChromaKelly]

On 4/5/2017 at 3:57 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

"Bridesmaids" and the shitting their pants scene, which I hate, hate hate and always have to fast-forward.

Entertainment Weekly just came out with an "Untold story" about the movie where the director cut a scene of Paul Rudd as a psychotic ice dancer or something that goes on a blind date with Kristen Wiig's character.  Seriously you fucking insisted on the pants-shitting scene instead of THAT?  

What?? Now THAT I would want to see!

[methodwriter85]

I really thought they should have tried making Action Point's park look more legitimate than they did in the movie. I get the point is that it was a half-assed park, but they went too far with that. It looked like a bunch of rusted rides on a field, and the real Action Point didn't look like that at all. They should have filmed in a real park- maybe one that had been abandoned recently.

Edited June 5, 2018 by methodwriter85

[raven]

Billy Elliot is an almost perfect movie but I never liked that Mrs. Wilkinson, the dance teacher played by Julie Walters who encourages Billy to dance, was not at his big opening night at the end of the movie.  I get that maybe to her he was another student, though a special and talented one, but I would have like to have seen her there, esp considering that Billy's dad was rude to her, out of being embarrassed about the class differences.

Still, it is a beautiful ending, with Billy's proud dad in awe of his talented son. I'm not a ballet watcher but I love the strength and grace here.

[NutMeg]

On 6/19/2018 at 2:46 AM, raven said:

Billy Elliot is an almost perfect movie but I never liked that Mrs. Wilkinson, the dance teacher played by Julie Walters who encourages Billy to dance, was not at his big opening night at the end of the movie.  I get that maybe to her he was another student, though a special and talented one, but I would have like to have seen her there, esp considering that Billy's dad was rude to her, out of being embarrassed about the class differences.

Still, it is a beautiful ending, with Billy's proud dad in awe of his talented son. I'm not a ballet watcher but I love the strength and grace here.

 

The end of Billy Elliot gives me goose bumps.

[methodwriter85]

I wish "Cherry Bomb" by the Runaways would have been on the I, Tonya soundtrack. That would have been a great compliment to "Barracuda" from Heart being a Tonya Harding theme.

I also wish "La Dolce Vita" by Ryan Paris had been included on the "Call Me By Your Name" soundtrack. Thematically and timeline-wise it just would have fit in so well. I also wish that Oliver had said "Later" to Elio at the train station scene. That would have been so perfect!

"Lullaby" by the Cure would have been great to include on the It soundtrack as well. That would have been great to soundtrack the scenes with Bev and her creepy father.

[Spartan Girl]

I loved Neighbors 2 even more than the original, but I really could have done without the part where their pregnant friend goes into labor and we see a baby foot sticking out of...you know.

[memememe76]

I really liked Love, Simon but I could have loved it if they either removed the Martin character or just made him a straight up villain. Any and all attempts to make him endearing made me angry. The last 30 or so minutes when he pretty much disappears is perfect filmmaking, imo.

Places in the Heart is such a beautiful piece, where the central Field Malkovich Glover relationship is so strong. But the Harris Crouse marital affair subplot is so pointless and distracting. 

[Spartan Girl]

On 9/6/2018 at 10:59 PM, memememe76 said:

I really liked Love, Simon but I could have loved it if they either removed the Martin character or just made him a straight up villain. Any and all attempts to make him endearing made me angry.

Without question.

You know what would have made the movie even better?  Instead of having Martin's "redemption" be giving him extra tickets for the ferris wheel with a lame-ass joke, he should have gone to Simon's friends when they were mad at him (which was petty of them, but that's another subject entirely) and say, "Look, everything Simon did was because I forced him to.  And when it didn't work, I was the one who outed him.  It was wrong and I am so sorry, and you can hate me all you want, but don't blame him.  Don't turn your back on him when he needs you the most."

[methodwriter85]

This girl did a really good analysis of Sierra Burgess Is A Loser and talked about how just a few changes would have made it into a much better film:

It's frustrating because there were moments where I felt like I was watching an updated John Hughes movie, but it just veered too much into "let's forgive everything the lead does because she's the lead."

[Mabinogia]

11 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

"let's forgive everything the lead does because she's the lead."

Oh no, it was because she's insecure because she's not pretty like the other girls so she gets to do as much harm as she wants and they all have to forgive her.

That movie had so much potential...until that.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I would have really liked A Simple Favor if not for the

Spoiler

incest stuff.

  It was so sick I really thought I was going to throw up.

I really liked To All the Boys I've Loved Before, but I would have much more if they simply made the character Korean, or hired an actual Asian/white actor to play this supposedly half Vietnamese half white character.  I am not sure why one of the only times I get to see a biracial character in my *ENTIRE* life, she had to be played by someone not biracial.  The sisters didn't look related to her as sisters to me at all.

I also wanted to avoid this movie because of no Asian male love interests whatsoever, but the press and hype was so extra so I finally caved.  

In contrast, it was super cool to see Emily's family in A Simple Favor, who was definitely cast very realistically I thought.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Ms Blue Jay

[Spartan Girl]

I loved Avengers Endgame except for

 

Steve staying in the past to be with Peggy. I'm sorry but even if it doesn't exactly change the future and just creates an alternate timeline it makes no sense and is kind of a betrayal to Steve's character. It's understandable that he wanted a life, but he couldn't do that in the present? Peggy had moved on and lived her life so the fact that Steve would erase all that in an alternate timeline just for his own happiness just seems kind of selfish? Steve had been moving on, or at least trying to in the other movies, and this just kind of retcons all that growth. Not to mention: what about Sharon? You were happy to kiss her in one timeline, now you're going off to marry her aunt in another?

Thats another thing that pisses me off. Sharon is a great character in the comics and it would have been great to give that relationship more attention in the movies. Yet the Russos blew every single opportunity to develop her character more, choosing instead to let ScarJo be the only female that got the lion's share of screen time in WS, and just sidelined and/or left out Sharon in all the other movies? Why? Because all the angry trolls decided Sharon was just a beard for Bucky -- but apparently Peggy was the exception? Ugh. It's the same thing they did to Ginny in the HP movies.

It just didn't feel like a fitting ending for Cap. If he'd been the one to Snap Thanos and die instead of Tony and end with a vision of him reuniting with Peggy I would have accepted that better.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Spartan Girl

[methodwriter85]

On 9/19/2018 at 2:40 PM, Mabinogia said:

Oh no, it was because she's insecure because she's not pretty like the other girls so she gets to do as much harm as she wants and they all have to forgive her.

That movie had so much potential...until that.

As Julia pointed out in her review, it's bizarre that this movie somehow decided that Jamey should be the one to make some big romantic grand gesture. Like, why? Sierra completely screwed him over, yet he's supposed to do something at the end to make her feel special? The hell? Sierra does some weak-ass apology song and all is forgiven? That's just not realistic.

It just feels like such a waste all around, because not only did it send a bad message that you can use whatever real or perceived handicap you have as an excuse for bad behavior, but it's also going to be held up as a, "Well, gee, because this actress who's weight is not under 125 pounds did not deliver a successful teen movie, we should stick to the template of putting glasses on hot girls instead" example.

[tennisgurl]

Now that its been a few years since it came out, with all the controversy that followed, I am making the bold statement that I think that the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot was...alright. I know that it was a huge thing back when it came out, with people blasting it as blasphemous to the original or a sign of "SJWs" ruining everything, to the awful Twitter attacks and everything else that went down, and everyone had to die on the pro/con hill, but looking back on it, the movie was, to me, just your average action comedy. It had some funny scenes and lines, most of the action worked, and the the cast was great, but even beyond comparing it to the original, which was a classic, it had a boring Big Bad, a pretty lackluster plot, and really didnt do much to distinguish itself from the original. It was really great having an all female cast, and having female ghostbusters is probably reason enough for it to exist, but that was really the main selling point of the movie. 

However, I think what could have helped the movie a lot, was making it an actual sequel, and not a full reboot. Not that much really had to change even, just have one of the original guys, now that they've all gotten older and retired, bring together a new ghostbusters team to combat a new infestation of ghosts plaguing New York? He brings together the four women, and we get moving. Then you could use some classic characters and bits from the original movies (maybe even bring back Zuul or some other monster from previous films?) so that way it would be more of a passing of the torch style movie, not just starting all over again. Since most of the original actors came back for cameos anyway, just ask one of them to stay an extra day and film some scenes with the new team to book end the movie? They dont have to actually be around, it would just serve as a way to bring the two series together, which I think would make it feel like it had more purpose than just using the ghostbusters name. Hell, if they wanted to keep the girl power thing going, they could have Dana or Janine bring the team together, or even serve as a mentor! The plot could stay the same (even if I think it was a pretty dull plot) and the new characters could do the same things, it would just have a connection with the original movies. It might not have been much, but I think it would have made the movie more unique, ironically. 

Speaking of things I would change in the Ghostbusters franchise, I dont get at all why in the second movie they had Dana and Venkman not be together, and have Dana have a baby with some other guy she isnt even with anymore. It just seems needlessly complicated and added pointless romantic drama that did nothing to help the plot, and was just disappointing to people that was even a little invested in them by the end of the movie. Really, it would make the movie have even more stakes if the baby was THEIR kid, and Venkman was fighting to save his own baby, and you could do a whole plot about him learning about responsibility and being a good parent. If they really wanted them to have to get back together, maybe just say they are having some issues, or are in a trail separation, and they get back together by the end? Or, let Dana get in a suit and kick some ass to save her baby, and have them kick ass together! I mean, you have Ripley herself there, use her! It just makes so much more sense for the story and characters, its a real wasted opportunity. 

Edited May 5, 2019 by tennisgurl

[katha]

"Marriage Story" is great in many ways and deserves its many accolades for acting, writing and directing. It's a very moving, often devastating film. But that kid is not well written and only used as plot device so viewers won't hate his parents for traumatizing him. If he had the least bit of reaction towards the upsetting things happening around him, things would get much more complicated emotionally. And for all the honesty in the script otherwise, I feel this is a real dishonest copout and totally noticeable throughout.

A second inadvertent thing that happens: Nicole's story is that she is finally finding her own voice and identity. But structurally in the movie? She becomes weirdly passive again and plays the sidekick to her lawyer too much. I can guess why it happened, Laura Dern's character is flashier and easier to write. But I wanted to know about Nicole's motivations. While OTOH, Charlie's scenes with his lawyers are centered on him and his decisions, the lawyers play supporting roles to him. Driver takes this devastating turn towards the end where his face starts closing off with anger and anxiety. And you understand why he keeps on fighting even though he knows the outcome already: To show his kid he cares, but also, unsaid, to hurt Nicole as much as she hurt him in the divorce. It's layers of motivations that are conveyed with great acting and a few pivotal scenes. Nicole doesn't get something like that and consequently there are moments where Johansson visibly strugles with scenes that are underwritten.

Edited August 8, 2020 by katha

[VCRTracking]

The last shot of LINCOLN should have been him at the end of the hallway in silhouette.

[methodwriter85]

10 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

The last shot of LINCOLN should have been him at the end of the hallway in silhouette.

I've been saying that for 8 years! It was really unnecessary to see the assassination.

[VCRTracking]

36 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

I've been saying that for 8 years! It was really unnecessary to see the assassination.

I honestly think the reason they didn't end there was Spielberg had shot that big crowd scene of him giving a speech which probably took a long time with a lot of extras and he didn't want to waste it!

[Spartan Girl]

Okay as much as I love War for the Planet of the Apes it's kind of weird that Caesar is the only ape -- well, other than Bad Ape -- in the group that speaks perfect English at this point while the other apes still just use sign language and and still struggle with speaking.

Also I think 1941 would have been way better if it stuck to satirizing the time instead of trying so hard to be like Animal House.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Spartan Girl

[VCRTracking]

Soooo many Spielberg movies fall into "This could've been better if only" category. Like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN would've been better if they didn't give all the German soldiers the same haircut! They could've saved audiences a lot of confusion.

[Luckylyn]

What movies have enjoyed but had one scene you thought was just terrible?

I love the movie Hidden Figures.  I read the book and was understood some changes.  It made sense to that they couldn’t include everyone and some peoples’ stories were merged with others for the sake of running time.  

One scene I hated was when Kevin Costner brought down the Colored Bathroom sign.  In the book, one black woman who was not included in the movie did the brave thing of removing the colored sign from the segregated cafeteria.  In the movie they changed it to the bathroom and gave the credit to a fictional white man played by Costner.  I despised that change.   I feel like Hollywood has this desperate need to have some sort of white savior into the narrative even when it’s unnecessary.