NationStates Jolt Archive


Movies you can live without

Xomic
21-12-2008, 14:37
A companion to this: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=577099)

Now, what films could you do without? For me it's Saw, Twilight, and the Harry Potter movies.

Oh, and probably this 'new' Star trek coming out.
Marandon
21-12-2008, 14:43
I could do without amytyville horror. when are ppeople gonna stop moving into that house?
Galloism
21-12-2008, 14:44
Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Harry Potter series, most Tom Cruise movies.
Western Mercenary Unio
21-12-2008, 14:47
Pretty much all modern films.
Katganistan
21-12-2008, 14:51
Epic Movie. Oh dear god, I want those 86 minutes of my life back!
Galloism
21-12-2008, 14:54
Epic Movie. Oh dear god, I want those 86 minutes of my life back!

That was only 86 minutes? It seemed a lot longer...
Blouman Empire
21-12-2008, 15:02
Epic Movie. Oh dear god, I want those 86 minutes of my life back!

Epic movie, Scary moive )all four( and that new movie they is soon o be released/recently released/currently in production, all should only be used as examples of shit movies.
Romannashi
21-12-2008, 15:07
I could do without amytyville horror. when are ppeople gonna stop moving into that house?

awesome movie it scared the crap out of me
Katganistan
21-12-2008, 15:22
That was only 86 minutes? It seemed a lot longer...
It was an eternity.... *sob*

Epic movie, Scary moive )all four( and that new movie they is soon o be released/recently released/currently in production, all should only be used as examples of shit movies.
Trust me, I was not the one who chose that as the "movie night" winner.... I had low expectations, but damn.... my low expectations were much higher than that shit.

The best part were the credits. At the end of the movie. Because it was OVER.
The Mindset
21-12-2008, 15:43
The Firefly movie, Serenity. Voted best sci-fi movie ever? Please. It was mediocre at best (as was the show that spawned it). The third Lord of the Rings film. It was messy, muddy, slow and boring. It reflected Tolkien's writing perfectly (because he wrote on sand using sand while sucking the juice from the page), but the first two were much better.
Rambhutan
21-12-2008, 15:45
Any Steven Spielberg or George Lucas film other than the Indiana Jones films or Catch me if you can; all Kubrick films; any film with Tom Cruise; and all Star Trek films.
SaintB
21-12-2008, 15:50
How about Nitemare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, all thier collective spin offs included?
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
21-12-2008, 16:09
Epic movie, Scary moive )all four( and that new movie they is soon o be released/recently released/currently in production, all should only be used as examples of shit movies.
This. Without the success of the first Scary Movie, the world would have been spared this plague of X Movie shitfests.
I'd also like to add everything ever touched by a Wayans brother. If I ever get a time machine, the first thing I'm doing is going back in time to kill their mother.
How about Nitemare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, all thier collective spin offs included?
You didn't even like the first Nightmare? Even with Johnny Depp, and the bizarre mix of dream sequence and waking?
SaintB
21-12-2008, 16:12
You didn't even like the first Nightmare? Even with Johnny Depp, and the bizarre mix of dream sequence and waking?

I didn't mind the first one, and I actually liked how the First Friday the 13th was realistic.

However I had already seen sequels to them first and it ruined the whole thing for me.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
21-12-2008, 16:29
However I had already seen sequels to them first and it ruined the whole thing for me.
I had the same problem with Friday the 13th. The first one I saw turns out to have been the worst (Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan), and then one of my asshole friends ruined the twist ending of the original before I saw it.
SaintB
21-12-2008, 16:33
I had the same problem with Friday the 13th. The first one I saw turns out to have been the worst (Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan), and then one of my asshole friends ruined the twist ending of the original before I saw it.

I might have actually liked those movies had I seen the first ones.

The only horror movies I ever liked were Scream, because they had a sense of humor.
Muravyets
21-12-2008, 16:36
I can and do live without the vast majority of movies that are made.

I am a brutal judge of preview trailers. When I go to the movie theater, I watch the trailers and give each movie thumbs up or down right then and there. I'm usually right.
SaintB
21-12-2008, 16:38
I can and do live without the vast majority of movies that are made.

I am a brutal judge of preview trailers. When I go to the movie theater, I watch the trailers and give each movie thumbs up or down right then and there. I'm usually right.

Sounds like an interesting talent. Me, I seem to have a soft spot for any movie with a (decent) sense of humor... I think my funny bone is deformed.
Muravyets
21-12-2008, 16:48
Sounds like an interesting talent. Me, I seem to have a soft spot for any movie with a (decent) sense of humor... I think my funny bone is deformed.
My mom is a huge movie buff, so I've spent my whole life watching movies at the rate a critic does, and I've seen even more trailers. I've learned how to spot the signals that the trailer contains all the best parts of the movie, or that the movie is nothing but a series of empty cliches and set scenes, or that even the moviemakers don't know what their movie is about.

Also, there are certain things that immediately guarantee a movie will be bad -- if it is a remake of a movie that no one was asking for a new version of; if it's a remake of a very good movie but redone with explosions and bad actors; if it's a remake of a movie made fewer than 20 years ago (all the versions of the Hulk that came out one right after the other = BAD); if it has certain actors in certain roles (like Keanu Reeves playing a smart person); or certain actors in any role (like if Billy Zane's name appears anywhere near it -- in fact, I can think of only one movie that Billy Zane somehow got into that was good, and that was "Tombstone", but he had a very small role and was annoying in it).
The Archregimancy
21-12-2008, 18:12
We have to go back some 20 years to find the single worst film I ever paid money to see:

Silent Night Deadly Night Part II

It was a wholly unnecessary sequel to a Santa Claus slasher film. Quite apart from the risible excuse for 'acting' that characterised the central performance, something like a third of the film consisted of recycled footage from the original used for flashbacks. Which at least spared me from ever having to watch the original.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Night,_Deadly_Night_Part_2), one scene lives on as the 'garbage day!' internet meme. Trust me - it's more than the film ever deserved.
Skallvia
21-12-2008, 20:28
The Chronicles of Narnia series....god...Lord of the Rings delivered, thats all im saying...Im just not buying that no one couldve fought the fricken lion, lol...


The last two Harry Potter movies...I want the Prisoner of Azkaban director back...

all of the High School Musicals my siblings keep me awake with at night...


An American Carol...Im gonna kill my friend for making me sit through that, I swear...
Lunatic Goofballs
21-12-2008, 20:56
The Godfather trilogy. Yeah! I said it!
Galloism
21-12-2008, 20:58
The Godfather trilogy. Yeah! I said it!

I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse... retract that statement, and I won't bust your kneecaps.
Call to power
21-12-2008, 21:01
Death at a funeral: maybe I'm not smart enough for this film but how on Earth can finding out your deceased father was having a gay affair with a midget not be funny?

The complete history of my sexual failures: I liked the ending they should of just shown that

Epic movie, Scary moive )all four( and that new movie they is soon o be released/recently released/currently in production, all should only be used as examples of shit movies.

your silly scary movie 1 was the shit (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FlEYYcxjGI4&feature=related)
Lunatic Goofballs
21-12-2008, 21:04
I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse... retract that statement, and I won't bust your kneecaps.

If I had a choice between busted kneecaps and watching the Godfather trilogy, I.....

....


*thinks* Gimme a minute...
Skallvia
21-12-2008, 21:06
If I had a choice between busted kneecaps and watching the Godfather trilogy, I.....

....


*thinks* Gimme a minute...

Might be a bit of a Catch-22 there...If he busts your kneecaps how will you escape watching the Godfather Trilogy?
Lunatic Goofballs
21-12-2008, 21:09
Might be a bit of a Catch-22 there...If he busts your kneecaps how will you escape watching the Godfather Trilogy?

At least the horrible searing pain would provide some distraction for my knees. ;)
Galloism
21-12-2008, 21:13
If I had a choice between busted kneecaps and watching the Godfather trilogy, I.....

....


*thinks* Gimme a minute...

http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/Don_Corleone_Offers_Chart.jpg
Lunatic Goofballs
21-12-2008, 21:17
Technically, it wasn't an offer, it was a choice. ;)
Luna Amore
21-12-2008, 21:18
The Godfather trilogy. Yeah! I said it!Thank you.

The Happening. Really anything by M. Night.
Lord Tothe
21-12-2008, 21:22
99% of all movies made are a waste of time. The fact of the matter is, I doubt I'll bother upgrading to a digital antenna receiver for my TV because most of the stuff on TV is worthless too.
Skallvia
21-12-2008, 21:25
99% of all movies made are a waste of time. The fact of the matter is, I doubt I'll bother upgrading to a digital antenna receiver for my TV because most of the stuff on TV is worthless too.

*heavy southern accent* WELL THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM! lol...

I dont watch channels under Thirty, Gotta have cable to get good tv...Discovery, History, Comedy Central, Adult Swim....thats good tv, lol...
The Parkus Empire
21-12-2008, 21:27
Titanic or any other film that uses a "love-story" as its main plot.
Anti-Social Darwinism
21-12-2008, 21:29
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Megaforce
From Noon 'til Three

Anything with Shia LaBoef, including, sadly, the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls

Burn them all.
Lord Tothe
21-12-2008, 21:31
*heavy southern accent* WELL THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM! lol...

I dont watch channels under Thirty, Gotta have cable to get good tv...Discovery, History, Comedy Central, Adult Swim....thats good tv, lol...

Discovery and History channels are OK, but not worth the monthly bill IMHO.

Comedy central and Adult Swim - WTF??? Is that supposed to be funny or something? *shuns* I have Futurama on DVD, so I don't need those channels for anything now :p

Back on topic: Why the hell were those Dungeons & Dragons movies made?
Lunatic Goofballs
21-12-2008, 21:31
We could collect every movie starring Stephen Segal and set them ablaze. Perhaps if I'm in a generous mood, I could be convinced to spare 'Under Siege". Maybe.
Galloism
21-12-2008, 21:34
We could collect every movie starring Stephen Segal and set them ablaze. Perhaps if I'm in a generous mood, I could be convinced to spare 'Under Siege". Maybe.

I'll support this.
Gauthier
21-12-2008, 21:37
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

Uwe Boll. The name that's the film industry's equivalent of a biohazard warning sign.
New Manvir
21-12-2008, 21:47
Epic Movie. Oh dear god, I want those 86 minutes of my life back!

Epic movie, Scary moive )all four( and that new movie they is soon o be released/recently released/currently in production, all should only be used as examples of shit movies.

Yep, pretty much anything these two guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Friedberg_and_Aaron_Seltzer) make is instant crap
Anti-Social Darwinism
21-12-2008, 21:47
Uwe Boll. The name that's the film industry's equivalent of a biohazard warning sign.

Yes, definitely wear a gas mask if watching this. Better yet, a biohazard disposal suit. Best of all - if you see it listed, run away.
Dalmatia Cisalpina
21-12-2008, 23:10
American Pie. And all the "sequels." Dear God, I want that part of my life back ...
Nanatsu no Tsuki
21-12-2008, 23:18
Anything made by Adam Sandler. Thanks.
South Lorenya
21-12-2008, 23:19
The movie Final Fantasy 7, along with the 257825829597 cosplayers. You'd think they'd realize it's been eleven years, but...
Skallvia
21-12-2008, 23:24
The movie Final Fantasy 7, along with the 257825829597 cosplayers. You'd think they'd realize it's been eleven years, but...

you mean Advent Children? THAT WAS AWESOME! lol...That being said, I only liked VII out of the FF series...

Spirits Within on the other hand >.>
Dyxie Fei
22-12-2008, 01:14
Clash of the Titans, an old '80s movie about Greek mythology.
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
22-12-2008, 01:22
Clash of the Titans, an old '80s movie about Greek mythology.

Ray Harryhausen was the king! :tongue:

Edit: Make that *is* the king - way to not die, Ray - 88 years old! :)
Mad hatters in jeans
22-12-2008, 01:24
Anything made by Adam Sandler. Thanks.

God yes, he's a terrible actor and he acts the same way in every single movie he's in.
Saw 3 i don't want to see again.
Oh and that recent film 'wanted' i think it's called, where they can curve bullets yes curve bullets, and do you know what happened when two people met who could curve bullets did and didn't like each other?
they curved bullets, while the other one countered the bullets with their own bullets and apparently Godlike reflexes. Just laughably terrible.
Oh and any film Hugh Grant has done is shit, i despise the guy, he's nice but he can't act at all.
Articoa
22-12-2008, 01:25
Anything by Uwe Boll. I hope I speak for everybody...
Pure Thought
22-12-2008, 01:28
Titanic or any other film that uses a "love-story" as its main plot.


I'm with you on that. There may be exceptions but I can't think of any just now.

Jean Claude van Damme movies. Come on, guy, how many movies do you have to make about you and a tragic brother?

I'll add The Color Purple -- I left that wishing i could walk under a bus without voiding my life insurance and leaving my family homeless.

Steven Segal movies. I've seen better acting from the Thunderbird puppets.

Harry Potter films. How does anyone remember which one is which?

The Golden Compass. Prissy, overbearing, trite, ridiculous -- and that's just the the trailer. It almost made the Harry Potter films look interesting.

Braveheart. The Scottish people deserved a better rendering of one of their national legends than that! At times I felt like I was Mel Gibson had prepared for his role by studying Christopher Lambert in The Highlander, and then deciding he could do an even worse impression of a Scotsman.

Speaking of The Highlander -- well, if I must, but now I'll need to be sedated before bed. It's not easy for me to name a film where Sean Connery couldn't rescue it at least partially, but this film is it. As for Lambert, even Steven Segal could teach him a thing about acting.


And how did we get all this way without mentioning Battlefield Earth? People died while (or was it from?) watching that film. England lost an entire test series during opening night. Hundreds of people are now receiving treatment for PTSD.
Chumblywumbly
22-12-2008, 01:29
The upcoming Watchmen.

Why do I want a film of a superhero comic that is about superhero comics and which relies on techniques of the medium of superhero comics to tell its story?
Muravyets
22-12-2008, 02:06
We have to go back some 20 years to find the single worst film I ever paid money to see:

Silent Night Deadly Night Part II

It was a wholly unnecessary sequel to a Santa Claus slasher film. Quite apart from the risible excuse for 'acting' that characterised the central performance, something like a third of the film consisted of recycled footage from the original used for flashbacks. Which at least spared me from ever having to watch the original.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Night,_Deadly_Night_Part_2), one scene lives on as the 'garbage day!' internet meme. Trust me - it's more than the film ever deserved.
You paid money to see that?!! Hahahaha!!! :D
SaintB
22-12-2008, 02:07
What about The Sequeks to the Santa Clause.. or better yet 90% of all of Disney's Sequels?
Muravyets
22-12-2008, 02:12
God yes, he's a terrible actor and he acts the same way in every single movie he's in.
Saw 3 i don't want to see again.
Oh and that recent film 'wanted' i think it's called, where they can curve bullets yes curve bullets, and do you know what happened when two people met who could curve bullets did and didn't like each other?
they curved bullets, while the other one countered the bullets with their own bullets and apparently Godlike reflexes. Just laughably terrible.
Oh and any film Hugh Grant has done is shit, i despise the guy, he's nice but he can't act at all.
"Wanted" was one where my trailer-dar came in handy. I heard Angelina Jolie say "curve the bullet" and my immediate reaction was, "my ass, bitch," two thumbs down. When that's THE selling point of your movie, your movie sucks.
SaintB
22-12-2008, 02:13
"Wanted" was one where my trailer-dar came in handy. I heard Angelina Jolie say "curve the bullet" and my immediate reaction was, "my ass, bitch," two thumbs down. When that's THE selling point of your movie, your movie sucks.

Not a very good movie, but the last line was one of the best in recent memory; or perhaps ever.

"And what the fuck have you done today?"

Sums it all up nicely.
Mad hatters in jeans
22-12-2008, 02:15
"Wanted" was one where my trailer-dar came in handy. I heard Angelina Jolie say "curve the bullet" and my immediate reaction was, "my ass, bitch," two thumbs down. When that's THE selling point of your movie, your movie sucks.

My flatmate got it borrowed from Blockbuster, and i decided to join him watch it, and it was really really bad.
one of the last scenes has a circluar room, and the main character is surrounded by men all of which standing at the far ends of the room, angelina fires a bullet which... curves... around... the room and kills them.
man it was bad.
Gauthier
22-12-2008, 02:18
My flatmate got it borrowed from Blockbuster, and i decided to join him watch it, and it was really really bad.
one of the last scenes has a circluar room, and the main character is surrounded by men all of which standing at the far ends of the room, angelina fires a bullet which... curves... around... the room and kills them.
man it was bad.

Maybe this explains what really happened to Kennedy.
Mad hatters in jeans
22-12-2008, 02:23
Maybe this explains what really happened to Kennedy.

Kennedy? no that was the illuminati remember?
oh yeah i remember it now
There is a school of assassins set up where Morgan Freeman is the wiseman, as usual and they pick their targets by weaving a loom, they read into the weave the name of the next person to die.
One day the assassin who reads the loom sees their own name, so they lie about it and pick someone else or something. Then Morgan Freeman reveals that all the assassins had their names mentioned at some point and he had to take them out of the threads or something like that.

It did have some interesting ideas, but the whole curving bullets thing was just bullshit.
Intangelon
22-12-2008, 02:25
Surely this category far outweighs the "can't live without" category -- to teh point where a list is rather pointless. BUT, since it's the Holidays:

Prancer.
SaintB
22-12-2008, 02:27
Clash of the Titans, an old '80s movie about Greek mythology.

How can you not like Clash of the Titans? Sure the special effects sucked, and the acting was droll... but the story was soo good....
Like a whole lot of movies from that era.
Intangelon
22-12-2008, 02:27
The upcoming Watchmen.

Why do I want a film of a superhero comic that is about superhero comics and which relies on techniques of the medium of superhero comics to tell its story?

Swing and a miss. Watchmen is not about superhero comics. Methinks your problem is with the genre, and not this specific film...which isn't out yet.
Intangelon
22-12-2008, 02:28
How can you not like Clash of the Titans? Sure the special effects sucked, and the acting was droll... but the story was soo good....

Lay of Ray Harryhousen! The man was a genius, and this was his final work. Of course the mythology was played fast and loose -- it's Hollywood. Fun film (I didn't watch it to get credit in a Classics course, fer cryin' out loud).
SaintB
22-12-2008, 02:31
Lay of Ray Harryhousen! The man was a genius, and this was his final work. Of course the mythology was played past and loose -- it's Hollywood. Fun film (I didn't watch it to get credit in a Classics course, fer cryin' out loud).

If Ihad 500 million bucks I would fund a remake of Clash just so it woulc have better special effects. I would probably do Argonauts too.. but I think that movie is damn near perfect as is.
Forsakia
22-12-2008, 02:50
Wanted was essentially The Matrix with all the good stuff taken out, and not as groundbreaking.

Field of Dreams.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-12-2008, 03:22
God yes, he's a terrible actor and he acts the same way in every single movie he's in.
Saw 3 i don't want to see again.
Oh and that recent film 'wanted' i think it's called, where they can curve bullets yes curve bullets, and do you know what happened when two people met who could curve bullets did and didn't like each other?
they curved bullets, while the other one countered the bullets with their own bullets and apparently Godlike reflexes. Just laughably terrible.
Oh and any film Hugh Grant has done is shit, i despise the guy, he's nice but he can't act at all.

Add to that all racing or car films there are.
SaintB
22-12-2008, 03:23
Add to that all racing or car films there are.

My name is SaintB, and I endorse this message.
Luna Amore
22-12-2008, 03:24
Oh and any film Hugh Grant has done is shit, i despise the guy, he's nice but he can't act at all.Even Love Actually or About A Boy?
Intangelon
22-12-2008, 03:27
Add to that all racing or car films there are.

Greased Lightning, with Richard Pryor as Wendell Scott, the first Black racing champion in the US. It's an excellent film.

(Just an exception that proves the rule, guapisima).
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-12-2008, 03:29
Greased Lightning, with Richard Pryor as Wendell Scott, the first Black racing champion in the US. It's an excellent film.

(Just an exception that proves the rule, guapisima).

I concede to you, caballero, still, anything done afterwards, like The Fast and the Furious, Wanted, Gone in 60 Seconds, and Herby Fully Loaded... crap.
UN Protectorates
22-12-2008, 03:30
Anything written and/or starring Steven Seagal.
SaintB
22-12-2008, 03:32
I concede to you, caballero, still, anything done afterwards, like The Fast and the Furious, Wanted, Gone in 60 Seconds, and Herby Fully Loaded... crap.

Wait.. what about The Love Bug?
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-12-2008, 03:33
Wait.. what about The Love Bug?

Dislike it too.
SaintB
22-12-2008, 03:35
Dislike it too.

Oh ok, i thought you were starting to give in.
Chumblywumbly
22-12-2008, 04:08
Swing and a miss. Watchmen is not about superhero comics.
It's about a lot of things... including (superhero) comics.

And the film will be shit.

Methinks your problem is with the genre, and not this specific film...
Nope.

There's been a couple of half-decent (modern) superhero movies; the original Hellboy, two-thirds of Ang Lee's Hulk.
Sirmomo1
22-12-2008, 04:29
Anything by the talentless Kevin Smith.
Minoriteeburg
22-12-2008, 04:49
A companion to this: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=577099)

Now, what films could you do without? For me it's Saw, Twilight, and the Harry Potter movies.

Oh, and probably this 'new' Star trek coming out.

I agree on twilight, I haven't read the book, but I can assume that it is at least 10 times better than that stupid film. Now apparently the sequel will have the same director who made the golden compass, and book fans are apparently pissed. I don't know why because their first director couldn't direct her way out of a paper bag.
Luna Amore
22-12-2008, 05:01
I agree on twilight, I haven't read the book, but I can assume that it is at least 10 times better than that stupid film. Now apparently the sequel will have the same director who made the golden compass, and book fans are apparently pissed. I don't know why because their first director couldn't direct her way out of a paper bag.It's better than the film, but not all that good. It's way too drawn out for the kind of story it is. A decent editor/writer could get that 500 page book down to 200 pages.
Lord Tothe
22-12-2008, 08:41
Anything by Uwe Boll. I hope I speak for everybody...

I don't think I've seen any Uwe Boll films.

*checks Wiki*

Boll's first two major releases were the horror movie Blackwoods and the drama Heart of America, both of which he directed and co-wrote.

Boll is best known for adapting video games into movies, having directed and produced a number of such adaptations, including House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne, BloodRayne II: Deliverance, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, and Postal. He has announced plans to produce an adaptation of Far Cry which has been met with anger from fans. Boll intends to produce Alone in the Dark II, and a third movie based on the BloodRayne franchise.[2] Boll also made a bid to direct the upcoming World of Warcraft movie, but was turned away by the owners of the Warcraft franchise, Blizzard.[3]

Oh. Him. Nope, haven't seen any of those. FarCry was an intriguing game - It would make a terrible movie, though. The only thing worse might be a Half-Life movie.
Nova Magna Germania
22-12-2008, 08:42
A companion to this: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=577099)

Now, what films could you do without? For me it's Saw, Twilight, and the Harry Potter movies.

Oh, and probably this 'new' Star trek coming out.

Sin City. Worst movie ever.
Intangelon
22-12-2008, 09:10
It's about a lot of things... including (superhero) comics.

It's about costumed heroes, but the only comic mentioned in the graphic novel was The Black Freighter, a pirate comic. Comics are mentioned as the genesis of the costumed hero movement, but to say Watchmen is about superhero comics is like saying The Dark Knight was about bank robbery. There was one in the movie, but that's hardly what it was about.

And the film will be shit.

I prefer to see for myself rather than rely on your precognitive abilities.

Nope.

There's been a couple of half-decent (modern) superhero movies; the original Hellboy, two-thirds of Ang Lee's Hulk.

Well, I'm glad you think so.
Rambhutan
22-12-2008, 10:07
Any films by that bloke Alan Smithee - he is a terrible director.





Yes I am joking
The Archregimancy
22-12-2008, 10:21
You paid money to see that?!! Hahahaha!!! :D

'That', for those unwilling to go back through the thread, being 'Silent Night Deadly Night, Part II'.

The context was that, on a dark night in 1987, myself and two friends (none of us fans of slasher films) were looking for some light entertainment to end the evening.

By the time we reached the cinema, our choices were between 'Silent Night Deadly Night, Part II' and 'American Ninja II - the Confrontation' (see how clearly the night's seared onto my psyche some 21 years on?). At the time, the Santa Claus slasher film must have seemed a marginally preferable choice over the risible martial arts film.

What I can't understand in hindsight, all these years later, is why we didn't just go home and rent a video.


Any films by that bloke Alan Smithee - he is a terrible director.

Including, ironically enough, 1998's 'An Alan Smithee Film', the central conceit of which is that a man genuinely called 'Alan Smithee' (played by Eric Idle) makes a film which the studio re-cuts - but he can't use a directorial pseudonym to hide his involvement in the film because the only one permitted is 'Alan Smithee'.

Things became really weird when the director of 'An Alan Smithee Film' didn't like the way the studio cut the film, and insisted that it go out as an Alan Smithee film.
Greal
22-12-2008, 10:23
Mission Impossible series, Twilight, some of Harry Potter series (1,2,3), and the latest King Kong (2005)

But I cannot live without The Dark Knight. :D
Rambhutan
22-12-2008, 10:25
Including, ironically enough, 1998's 'An Alan Smithee Film', the central conceit of which is that a man genuinely called 'Alan Smithee' (played by Eric Idle) makes a film which the studio re-cuts - but he can't use a directorial pseudonym to hide his involvement in the film because the only one permitted is 'Alan Smithee'.

Things became really weird when the director of 'An Alan Smithee Film' didn't like the way the studio cut the film, and insisted that it go out as an Alan Smithee film.

Excellent, I think physicists are making a mistake by not regarding irony as one of the fundamental forces in the universe.
Ordo Drakul
22-12-2008, 11:01
I think we should have gone with "Worst Movie Ever" as opposed to horrible films-there's so many. However, let's offer up:
The Avengers-Uma Thurmon as an absolutely sexless Mrs. Peel and a script not even Sean Connery could save
The Killer Eye-only movie I've ever seen that would have been improved by being a hard-core porn
Feast II-why remake a piece of crap? Catapulting midgets into a prison is probably the most brilliant move the heroes perform in this wreckage
Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs-so horrible, I've never finished watching it-Vincent Price being directed by Italian slasher king Mario Bava should be horror, but not on this level
War of the Worlds-the Tom Cruise atrocity. The best thing I can say about it was the war scenes looked like an artsy jeans commercial.
Sargeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band-let's take all the songs the Beatles wouldn't use in a film and have the disco bands of the seventies perform them. Worse than it sounds, but it has a fan base.
No Names Left Damn It
22-12-2008, 12:16
Titanic, Gallipoli and Braveheart.
No Names Left Damn It
22-12-2008, 12:16
the latest King Kong (2005)

You are dead to me.
Muravyets
22-12-2008, 15:42
'That', for those unwilling to go back through the thread, being 'Silent Night Deadly Night, Part II'.

The context was that, on a dark night in 1987, myself and two friends (none of us fans of slasher films) were looking for some light entertainment to end the evening.

By the time we reached the cinema, our choices were between 'Silent Night Deadly Night, Part II' and 'American Ninja II - the Confrontation' (see how clearly the night's seared onto my psyche some 21 years on?). At the time, the Santa Claus slasher film must have seemed a marginally preferable choice over the risible martial arts film.

What I can't understand in hindsight, all these years later, is why we didn't just go home and rent a video.
You must have been stoned. It's the only explanation.


Including, ironically enough, 1998's 'An Alan Smithee Film', the central conceit of which is that a man genuinely called 'Alan Smithee' (played by Eric Idle) makes a film which the studio re-cuts - but he can't use a directorial pseudonym to hide his involvement in the film because the only one permitted is 'Alan Smithee'.

Things became really weird when the director of 'An Alan Smithee Film' didn't like the way the studio cut the film, and insisted that it go out as an Alan Smithee film.

Excellent, I think physicists are making a mistake by not regarding irony as one of the fundamental forces in the universe.
I agree. The advance buzz on that one was entertainment all by itself. :D

You are dead to me.
And you to me. "King Kong" (2005) is an abomination. Not content to just be a lousy giant gorilla movie, that turd on film did absolutely everything wrong, and if it meant to be a joke, it failed at that, too. It is the "Dune" of giant gorilla movies -- every single thing about it sucks -- the script, the acting, the fact that good actors were doing that horrible wooden shit, the music, the camera work, the set design, the costume design, the editing, the fucking sound editing for crying out loud! Even the much ballyhooed effects were crap in the context -- also, the very fact of their overblown existence added an extra glaze of crapitude to the whole crap layer cake. The only insult to both the audience and the source material that the makers of that pile missed was that they didn't hire Uwe Boll to direct it. Though frankly, I don't see how even he could have done a worse job.

EDIT: By the way, the only reason I know how bad that thing sucked is because I forced myself to sit through it on television. I knew from the trailer that it was a stinker, so I did not spend money to see it. About 10 minutes in, I knew exactly how bad the stink coming off it was going to be, but I watched the whole thing just to prove it to myself. And let me tell you, I had underestimated how bad a giant gorilla movie could possibly get.

And why did I put myself through that torture at all? Just because there was nothing else on tv that night, and it had Adrien Brody in it. Though, to be honest, I wish they'd been showing "The Village" instead. If I had my choice of painfully horrible movies in which Adrien Brody embarrasses himself, I'd pick that one over "King Kong" because at least "The Village" is not brutally murdering and then pissing on the corpse of a good monster movie.
No Names Left Damn It
22-12-2008, 15:47
The only thing worse might be a Half-Life movie.

I'm fairly sure there's plans for that.
The Archregimancy
22-12-2008, 16:03
You must have been stoned. It's the only explanation.


I wish. At least that way we'd have had an excuse.

No, in the end, I think the only excuse we had was being young, stupid, and bored. My chronology's a bit mixed up, but I think I might have still had a crush on the only young woman in the group as well, and therefore may have been willing to spend more time with her no matter what the film* (which I think was suggested by the third person in the group). I can't remember if this was before or after I took her on a date to see The Killing Fields - that's right, I certainly knew how to impress a woman with romantic film choices back in my late teens.


Edit:
Looks like it was three years after - The Killing Fields was released in 1984. In which case said young woman and myself were merely good friends, and I can't even use the crush excuse.


* you apparently feel the same way about Adrien Brody ;)


I agree. The advance buzz on that one was entertainment all by itself. :D


The Wiki page for the film states that, even more ironically, the fight over the Alan Smithee directors' credit on An Alan Smithee Film let to the Alan Smithee tagline being discontinued.


So, summarising...

An Alan Smithee Film is about a director called Alan Smithee who can't use the Alan Smithee pseudonym; the director of An Alan Smithee Film then tried to use the Alan Smithee pseudonym himself, turning An Alan Smithee film into an Alan Smithee Film, which in turn led to the Alan Smithee credit being discontinued.

Everyone clear on that?
Barringtonia
22-12-2008, 16:05
I will second Epic Movie and anything by Steven Seagal, most especially the one where he's up in Alaska or something with Michael Caine, that movie was technically human rights abuse and he should be hanging with Saddam, in fact instead of Saddam, for that one.

I also cannot stand the Rocky series, I can just about take the 1st, the last was watchable, but at some point I just find it utterly pointless to watch someone have the shit beaten out of him for half an hour to 45 minutes only to win with a lucky punch in the last round and then I'm supposed to admire this loser?

What's the message of that film, life will beat the shit out of you for 15 rounds but you might get a lucky punch in at the end?

It's just a message that encapsulates everything wrong in this world, the idea that you have to suffer through pointless hell for a very questionable reward.

No, actually, you don't, there's nothing admirable in that at all.

Sums up the film as well.
No Names Left Damn It
22-12-2008, 16:09
Hideous, blasphemous snip

It was that bad? You don't think the special effects are anything special? You think the acting's bad? Wow. Wow. Do you find anything in it not painful?
Grave_n_idle
22-12-2008, 16:15
Anything by Uwe Boll. I hope I speak for everybody...

Nope.

I collect Uwe Boll films. Deliberately.
Western Mercenary Unio
22-12-2008, 16:17
Nope.

I collect Uwe Boll films. Deliberately.

Why?
Neo Art
22-12-2008, 16:32
Why?

my guess? masocism.
The_pantless_hero
22-12-2008, 16:33
Anything made by Adam Sandler. Thanks.
Whatever commie.

Most sequels suck. Especially sequels of bad movies. And those made 50 years after the original movie. And that are sequels of a book movie but not based on any book.

Starship Troopers 2-3.
Half of Godfather 2 (the parts with Michael heading the family that wasn't in the original book), and Godfather 3
Jurassic Park 2-3
Love Bug 2000
Blues Brothers 2000
The Land Before Time 2-200
National Lampoon's anything with "National Lampoon's" in the title
etc

All never should have been made.
Grave_n_idle
22-12-2008, 16:36
Why?

At least partly, because his films get judged by Hollywood standards, but they aren't Hollywood movies. Partly because he makes 'European' movies. Partly because he's so hated on... for making movies that are at least better than half of what comes out, but get torn to pieces.

I compare Uwe Boll's movies to his Hollywood contemporaries. I see something like "Alone In The DarK", and I compare it to "They"... and I wonder why the German is judged so harshly, and the American director garners a sympathetic response.

Uwe Boll isn't judged on his movies - he's judged on an America-centric bias.
Muravyets
22-12-2008, 16:45
It was that bad? You don't think the special effects are anything special? You think the acting's bad? Wow. Wow. Do you find anything in it not painful?
No. Not one second of that thing is not horrible.

As for the acting, I am a big fan of Jack Black but I just wanted to throw a bag over him and mail him somewhere, just to shut him up with that fake, over-mannered bullshit he was doing. Same with Naomi Watts, who seemed to think her character was supposed to be an idiot utterly lacking in personality. And Adrien Brody, who was the only reason I watched the damned thing, should fire his agent for putting him in a movie where he had nothing to do but sit in a cellar and type (what? appealing to the gamer audience much?), act like a spineless dweeb, and the one big kissing scene they gave him -- they cut away from for a drama-enhancing shot of a radio guy writing down a note and handing it to someone else!! I mean -- seriously? Did these people even bother to look at the "Movie Making for Dummies" handbook?

And as for those "effects" -- That movie was one of the worst offenders of over-use of CGI, with so many effects that were so wildly unrealistic and so extremely unrelated to the story in any way at all, that they just about destroyed any hope of coherent content. It's bad enough that Peter Jackson (who I suspect must have blackmailed his way into his career, because it can't possibly be based on talent) littered up the LOTR movies with vignettes of characters who were not actually in the story at all, but at least the insanely physically impossible effects were kept to enough of a minimum that I only cried "bullshit!" a four or five times during them. In "King Kong", however, such "bullshit" overwhelmed the movie so much, that you could barely see the movie itself through the blizzard of dinosaurs and taxis flying in all directions for no fucking reason.
Muravyets
22-12-2008, 16:50
I wish. At least that way we'd have had an excuse.

No, in the end, I think the only excuse we had was being young, stupid, and bored. My chronology's a bit mixed up, but I think I might have still had a crush on the only young woman in the group as well, and therefore may have been willing to spend more time with her no matter what the film* (which I think was suggested by the third person in the group). I can't remember if this was before or after I took her on a date to see The Killing Fields - that's right, I certainly knew how to impress a woman with romantic film choices back in my late teens.


Edit:
Looks like it was three years after - The Killing Fields was released in 1984. In which case said young woman and myself were merely good friends, and I can't even use the crush excuse.
Ah, you poor sad bastard. :D

* you apparently feel the same way about Adrien Brody ;)
"King Kong" was a severe test of my devotion, let me tell you.


The Wiki page for the film states that, even more ironically, the fight over the Alan Smithee directors' credit on An Alan Smithee Film let to the Alan Smithee tagline being discontinued.


So, summarising...

An Alan Smithee Film is about a director called Alan Smithee who can't use the Alan Smithee pseudonym; the director of An Alan Smithee Film then tried to use the Alan Smithee pseudonym himself, turning An Alan Smithee film into an Alan Smithee Film, which in turn led to the Alan Smithee credit being discontinued.

Everyone clear on that?
Eric Idle can feel proud for having added that footnote to cinema history. :D
The_pantless_hero
22-12-2008, 16:57
At least partly, because his films get judged by Hollywood standards, but they aren't Hollywood movies. Partly because he makes 'European' movies. Partly because he's so hated on... for making movies that are at least better than half of what comes out, but get torn to pieces.

I compare Uwe Boll's movies to his Hollywood contemporaries. I see something like "Alone In The DarK", and I compare it to "They"... and I wonder why the German is judged so harshly, and the American director garners a sympathetic response.

Uwe Boll isn't judged on his movies - he's judged on an America-centric bias.

Uwe Bool is judged on taking established storylines and raping them. Alone in the Dark compared to They? They was an original movie, Alone in the Dark was a popular video game series that Uwe Boll took and mutilated and then put on a movie screen. And that is why everyone shits on Uwe Boll. He doesn't come up with original movies, he gets the rights to make movies off of other people's backs. Saying we should cut him some slack is like saying we should cut the Will Smith "I, Robot" some slack because there are worse movies. It doesn't matter if there are worse movies, those worse movies are probably original movies, not hack jobs that steal the names of popular ip.
Muravyets
22-12-2008, 17:04
At least partly, because his films get judged by Hollywood standards, but they aren't Hollywood movies. Partly because he makes 'European' movies. Partly because he's so hated on... for making movies that are at least better than half of what comes out, but get torn to pieces.

I compare Uwe Boll's movies to his Hollywood contemporaries. I see something like "Alone In The DarK", and I compare it to "They"... and I wonder why the German is judged so harshly, and the American director garners a sympathetic response.

Uwe Boll isn't judged on his movies - he's judged on an America-centric bias.
I'm sorry, but that is just bullshit, GnI.

Uwe Boll is like an internet troll, only he makes movies instead of posts. I've seen plenty of European movies, both high and low budget, including ones made for what the US would call the B-movie or drive-in type audience, and none of them have sucked as bad a Boll movie. Shittiness is his style. But it's not witty-shitty that is a satire on the industry (like John Waters' movies). Nope, Boll-shitty is just pure crapola that does nothing but damage the artform. Dammit, even William Castle's cheap eploitation flicks were better at being movies that Boll's stuff.

If you're going to claim that Uwe Boll is part of the independent, "underground" world of witty-shitty movie making, you're going to be wrong. He may want to be part of that, but that's just another thing he fails to achieve.

Judge Uwe Boll honestly by European standards, and he will come out shit. Claiming that, by European standards, he has any merit, is just an insult against Europeans.
Minoriteeburg
22-12-2008, 17:20
Nope.

I collect Uwe Boll films. Deliberately.

I guess then you are happy to hear he is making a film versoin of Contra.
Western Mercenary Unio
22-12-2008, 17:23
I guess then you are happy to hear he is making a film versoin of Contra.

What the hell?
Minoriteeburg
22-12-2008, 17:26
What the hell?

I read something about it on IGN a month or two back...I cannot find the article though.

He is also making Bloodrayne 3...funny I didn't know there was a two.
SaintB
22-12-2008, 18:10
Why?

Grave n' Idle collects Uwe Bole Films because he works at Gitmo.
Laerod
22-12-2008, 18:17
At least partly, because his films get judged by Hollywood standards, but they aren't Hollywood movies. Partly because he makes 'European' movies. Partly because he's so hated on... for making movies that are at least better than half of what comes out, but get torn to pieces.

I compare Uwe Boll's movies to his Hollywood contemporaries. I see something like "Alone In The DarK", and I compare it to "They"... and I wonder why the German is judged so harshly, and the American director garners a sympathetic response.

Uwe Boll isn't judged on his movies - he's judged on an America-centric bias.As a German, I found "Alone in the Dark" a terrible movie. Anyone involved in making that is guilty of travesty.
Gauthier
22-12-2008, 20:03
Uwe Bool is judged on taking established storylines and raping them. Alone in the Dark compared to They? They was an original movie, Alone in the Dark was a popular video game series that Uwe Boll took and mutilated and then put on a movie screen. And that is why everyone shits on Uwe Boll. He doesn't come up with original movies, he gets the rights to make movies off of other people's backs. Saying we should cut him some slack is like saying we should cut the Will Smith "I, Robot" some slack because there are worse movies. It doesn't matter if there are worse movies, those worse movies are probably original movies, not hack jobs that steal the names of popular ip.

A more accurate comparison would be asking people to cut the Demi Moore version of The Scarlet Letter some slack. If you've ever read the classic novel and then had the misfortune of watching the film, the searing eyeball pain becomes very obvious.
Minoriteeburg
22-12-2008, 20:05
Grave n' Idle collects Uwe Bole Films because he works at Gitmo.

When it comes to torture

Uwe Boll films are worse than waterboarding.
No Names Left Damn It
22-12-2008, 20:06
Jurassic Park 2

That was loosely based on Crichton's sequel of the same name.
The_pantless_hero
22-12-2008, 20:06
A more accurate comparison would be asking people to cut the Demi Moore version of The Scarlet Letter some slack. If you've ever read the classic novel and then had the misfortune of watching the film, the searing eyeball pain becomes very obvious.
I couldn't tell. My eyeballs were already seared by pain from reading the book.

That was loosely based on Crichton's sequel of the same name.
Not quite. Crichton wrote Jurassic Park 2 at the prodding of Spielberg and fans. He had to rewrite plot points from the original book to do it.
Gauthier
22-12-2008, 20:09
When it comes to torture

Uwe Boll films are worse than waterboarding.

The ICC can actually hand out the death penalty if you're convicted of using Uwe Boll films as part of torture.

And I recall somewhere that Europe for the most part forbids the death penalty.

They're that fucking serious.
Minoriteeburg
22-12-2008, 20:09
Not quite. Crichton wrote Jurassic Park 2 at the prodding of Spielberg and fans. He had to rewrite plot points from the original book to do it.

It still was nowhere near as bad as 3.

There was a rumor of JP4 around the time the Indy 4 buzz was going around.
Minoriteeburg
22-12-2008, 20:10
The ICC can actually hand out the death penalty if you're convicted of using Uwe Boll films as part of torture.

And I recall somewhere that Europe for the most part forbids the death penalty.

They're that fucking serious.

Here's a question: Which Uwe Boll film is the worst?

House of the Dead for me.
The_pantless_hero
22-12-2008, 20:10
It still was nowhere near as bad as 3.

But it was still bad. Had Crichton not been involved, it would have been worse.
Gauthier
22-12-2008, 20:13
Here's a question: Which Uwe Boll film is the worst?

House of the Dead for me.

Personally the Dungeon Siege anal rape made me weep, seeing as Jason Statham actually got suckered into doing it.

EDIT: Then again every Bollshit after House of the Dead is depressing given that a fairly recognizable name or two has been brought into them. It's like watching a favorite actor or actress participating in cinematic rape.
Hotwife
22-12-2008, 20:13
High School Musical
Grave_n_idle
22-12-2008, 21:01
Uwe Bool is judged on taking established storylines and raping them. Alone in the Dark compared to They? They was an original movie, Alone in the Dark was a popular video game series that Uwe Boll took and mutilated and then put on a movie screen. And that is why everyone shits on Uwe Boll. He doesn't come up with original movies, he gets the rights to make movies off of other people's backs. Saying we should cut him some slack is like saying we should cut the Will Smith "I, Robot" some slack because there are worse movies. It doesn't matter if there are worse movies, those worse movies are probably original movies, not hack jobs that steal the names of popular ip.

The problem with the assertion that Boll is all about ripping off these video game ideas falls down, immediately, when you consider that his first video-game-port, was something like his tenth movie.

Okay - you don't like what he does with video games, but you're misrepresenting that as something it's not.

It also seems that you're claiming Boll 'mutilated' House of the Dead... but also... that he's somehow stealing the product from the established game franchise. He can't be doing both. He's either faithful to it, or he's not - if he's faithful, you have an argument he's swiping the franchise, if he's mangling it, you have an argument he's being original.

But I am arguing Boll should be cut some slack. I would say that "They" and "House of the Dead" were similar kinds of films, of about the same quality - and yet "House of the Dead" gets scored half as highly as "They" when it gets reviewed, and garners much heavier criticism.

It's a dogpile. It's not honestly reviewing the material.
Minoriteeburg
22-12-2008, 21:05
But it was still bad. Had Crichton not been involved, it would have been worse.

Very true. He didn't have any involvment in 3 right? You know the one where the raptors were pretty much stormtroopers.

Personally the Dungeon Siege anal rape made me weep, seeing as Jason Statham actually got suckered into doing it.

EDIT: Then again every Bollshit after House of the Dead is depressing given that a fairly recognizable name or two has been brought into them. It's like watching a favorite actor or actress participating in cinematic rape.


And ray liotta being in dungeon siege really shows you where his career has gone.
No Names Left Damn It
22-12-2008, 21:10
It still was nowhere near as bad as 3. I actually think it was good. Not 3, but the Lost World. Good film.

There was a rumor of JP4 around the time the Indy 4 buzz was going around.

It was also gonna have Velociraptors with guns.
No Names Left Damn It
22-12-2008, 21:10
High School Musical

Yes. So so much.
Minoriteeburg
22-12-2008, 21:11
I actually think it was good. Not 3, but the Lost World. Good film.


The Lost World was good. Not as great as the first, but sequels normally aren't as good.


It was also gonna have Velociraptors with guns.

In the third they were like stormtroopers without blasters.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-12-2008, 21:28
Whatever commie.

Most sequels suck. Especially sequels of bad movies. And those made 50 years after the original movie. And that are sequels of a book movie but not based on any book.

Starship Troopers 2-3.
Half of Godfather 2 (the parts with Michael heading the family that wasn't in the original book), and Godfather 3
Jurassic Park 2-3
Love Bug 2000
Blues Brothers 2000
The Land Before Time 2-200
National Lampoon's anything with "National Lampoon's" in the title
etc

All never should have been made.

And I am a commie because... I don't like Adam Sandler? Oh noes! He's just such an excellent actor. He who gave us Chanukah songs and what-not. He who made being an idiot cool, an actor of the caliber of Glen Close or Sir Ben Kingsley. Me, not liking him? How dare I spit on the Great Sandler!?

Please. Adam Sandler is an idiot, and his comedy movies are idiotic too.
Vampire Knight Zero
22-12-2008, 21:30
Please, no more crappy Disney movies...
Muravyets
22-12-2008, 21:51
The problem with the assertion that Boll is all about ripping off these video game ideas falls down, immediately, when you consider that his first video-game-port, was something like his tenth movie.

Okay - you don't like what he does with video games, but you're misrepresenting that as something it's not.

It also seems that you're claiming Boll 'mutilated' House of the Dead... but also... that he's somehow stealing the product from the established game franchise. He can't be doing both. He's either faithful to it, or he's not - if he's faithful, you have an argument he's swiping the franchise, if he's mangling it, you have an argument he's being original.

But I am arguing Boll should be cut some slack. I would say that "They" and "House of the Dead" were similar kinds of films, of about the same quality - and yet "House of the Dead" gets scored half as highly as "They" when it gets reviewed, and garners much heavier criticism.

It's a dogpile. It's not honestly reviewing the material.
A) You can steal a thing and ruin it at the same time. However, Boll is not stealing because he is paid to make movies based on those games. Otherwise, he would not be able to use the titles and characters of the games. So he's just ruining them, not stealing from them.

B) That technical point aside, my criticisms of Boll have nothing whatsoever to do with the games. I've never played of those games. My issues with him are all about the quality of his work, not its subject matter. I despise Uwe Boll because he makes bad movies, and for that I see no reason to cut him any slack at all.

C) I fail to see that "House of the Dead" is getting MUCH heavier criticism than "They", aside from a few mild comments that the former sucked more than the latter. You seem to be imagining some big crusade that does not exist.

D) Also I fail to see how you can say that we are just dogpiling and not honestly reviewing the material. Do you have information that I don't have, that indicates that I have not watched Uwe Boll's movies, even though I am under the impression that I have? I daresay others in this thread who are able to pick out things they don't like about Boll movies have actually seen those things, too. What proof do you want that we are actually reviewing the material -- would you like us to come to your house to watch your collection right there in front of you? Hooked up to lie detectors, so you'll know we're reviewing it "honestly"?
Hotwife
22-12-2008, 21:59
Please, no more crappy Disney movies...

And no more Disney TV shows

And no more Disney network

PLEASE!
Wilgrove
22-12-2008, 22:02
Titanic or any other film that uses a "love-story" as its main plot.

Agreed, the romance movies are so damn unrealistic. As a guy, I am now going to do a PSA for women.

Attention Women: Life is NOT a romance movie or a romantic-comedy, it's just not. You're not going to meet a handsome guy who just happens to be single and he's not going to jump through all these hoops to prove his "love" to you after knowing you for a month. It's just not going to happen.

Thank you and have a good day.

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Megaforce
From Noon 'til Three

Anything with Shia LaBoef, including, sadly, the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls

Burn them all.

They should've renamed "Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls" to "The Curse of the Broken Hip"

Yep, pretty much anything these two guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Friedberg_and_Aaron_Seltzer) make is instant crap

Agreed.

American Pie. And all the "sequels." Dear God, I want that part of my life back ...

Agreed.

Epic Movie. Oh dear god, I want those 86 minutes of my life back!

I'm glad I didn't see it then.

Epic movie, Scary moive )all four( and that new movie they is soon o be released/recently released/currently in production, all should only be used as examples of shit movies.

The only reason the Wayne Brothers still make these movies is that idiots still go see them.

This. Without the success of the first Scary Movie, the world would have been spared this plague of X Movie shitfests.
I'd also like to add everything ever touched by a Wayans brother. If I ever get a time machine, the first thing I'm doing is going back in time to kill their mother.

You didn't even like the first Nightmare? Even with Johnny Depp, and the bizarre mix of dream sequence and waking?

Agreed with the Waynes Brother comments and I enjoyed the first Nightmare and 13th.

Saw 3 i don't want to see again.

Why not? SAW III was awesome! I rate it right behind SAW. I enjoyed it because it shows that John Kramer wasn't going to be this villain that keeps dying and coming back, that once he's dead, hes dead. It also shows that his apprentice Amanda Young was making games that weren't winnable, thus she was fallible. I just thought SAW III gave a whole new aspect to the SAW franchise.


I'll add The Color Purple -- I left that wishing i could walk under a bus without voiding my life insurance and leaving my family homeless.

And how did we get all this way without mentioning Battlefield Earth? People died while (or was it from?) watching that film. England lost an entire test series during opening night. Hundreds of people are now receiving treatment for PTSD.

Why does "The Color Purple" sound familiar? Did people really die from watching Battlefield Earth?

What about The Sequeks to the Santa Clause.. or better yet 90% of all of Disney's Sequels?

Agreed. Disney is the evil!

Anything by the talentless Kevin Smith.

I actually enjoyed Dogma.

High School Musical

Oh God yes...I wish I had a role in that film. Hell I wish I have enough money to make "High School Musical: Columbine". At the end, all the actors are dead and everyone wins....well except the actors.

Also to prevent another sequel, the end will be "This is not a dream sequence, it's not virtual reality, everyone is dead, dead, dead, DEAD! You got that? Good.

Please, no more crappy Disney movies...

Agreed, I only watch Disney movies because I have a 1 year old nephew and his parents says to play it for him. I mainly just sit there and make fun of it.

Saw

Why do you not like the SAW franchise?
Sirmomo1
22-12-2008, 22:07
I just don't understand how Uwe Boll can bother anybody.

If you don't like his movies you don't see them.

And there isn't any massive promotional blitz

And there isn't any critical acclaim

And your friends aren't going on and on about how great he is.

If Uwe Boll's films get to you then you're probably looking to feel that way.
Gauthier
22-12-2008, 22:12
I just don't understand how Uwe Boll can bother anybody.

If you don't like his movies you don't see them.

And there isn't any massive promotional blitz

And there isn't any critical acclaim

And your friends aren't going on and on about how great he is.

If Uwe Boll's films get to you then you're probably looking to feel that way.

Uh no. Uwe Boll is a disease. Even if you ignore the symptoms it'll continue to spread and deteriorate if left unchecked.

The problem is that Uwe Boll chooses popular video game licenses and commits blatant canon rape as part of his German Tax Law Producers-style writeoff scam. Imagine if he picked classic literature to do this with instead of video games. You'd hear a whole lot more people bitching about him then.

And it's because of Bollshit that people dismiss video games as a potential source of decent movies.
Grave_n_idle
22-12-2008, 23:03
Uh no. Uwe Boll is a disease. Even if you ignore the symptoms it'll continue to spread and deteriorate if left unchecked.


Thank you for being evidence of exactly the sort of thing I was talking about...


The problem is that Uwe Boll chooses popular video game licenses and commits blatant canon rape as part of his German Tax Law Producers-style writeoff scam.


For me, the telling part of this[/] paragraph was: "...his German Tax Law [I]Producers-style writeoff scam...."

In other words, your big complaint about the movie... is absolutely nothing to do with the movie.


Imagine if he picked classic literature to do this with instead of video games. You'd hear a whole lot more people bitching about him then.

And it's because of Bollshit that people dismiss the potential of video games serving as a potential source of decent movies.

Because House of the Dead had such a devoted following to it's almost Shakespearean scripting and Abelardian ripostes?

The "Resident Evil" movies bear about the same amount of resemblence to the game storylines as Boll's product does, and yet you don't see those movies accruing the same kind of feeding frenzy.

And the reason people bitch about game-to-movie ports... isn't because of Boll, but because of a decade-plus campaign of making movies from games... featuring such high points as "Street Fighter" and "Mortal Kombat". Uwe Boll is - at worst - part of a movement.


On the other hand - I think it's arguable that Boll has bought new attention to these games, so the game purists should be thanking him.
Chumblywumbly
22-12-2008, 23:03
It's about costumed heroes, but the only comic mentioned in the graphic novel was The Black Freighter, a pirate comic. Comics are mentioned as the genesis of the costumed hero movement, but to say Watchmen is about superhero comics is like saying The Dark Knight was about bank robbery. There was one in the movie, but that's hardly what it was about.
I'd strongly disagree; an integral part of the plot is Moore's take on the superhero genre, and the place of superheroes/vigilantes in 'real' society. The only comic mentioned directly is The Black Freighter, sure, but Moore's taking a look (swipe?) at superhero comics, and 'examining' superhero-ness, through the murder of the Comedian. Indeed, Moore's continued on a similar theme with his Top Ten/Smax comics.

But don't take my word on it, hear from the man himself:

The initial concept would've had the 1960s-'70s rather lame version of the Shield being found dead in the harbor, and then you'd probably have various other characters, including Jack Kirby's Private Strong, being drafted back in, and a murder mystery unfolding. I suppose I was just thinking, "That'd be a good way to start a comic book: have a famous super-hero found dead." As the mystery unraveled, we would be lead deeper and deeper into the real heart of this super-hero's world, and show a reality that was very different to the general public image of the super-hero. So, that was the idea.

Source (http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html).
Obviously, 1980's Cold War politics, the threat of nuclear annihilation, and other themes, are in Watchmen also (and arguably take pride of place).

I prefer to see for myself rather than rely on your precognitive abilities.
Quite right too.

I just don't see how a film adaptation will do the comic justice.
Grave_n_idle
22-12-2008, 23:14
A) You can steal a thing and ruin it at the same time. However, Boll is not stealing because he is paid to make movies based on those games. Otherwise, he would not be able to use the titles and characters of the games. So he's just ruining them, not stealing from them.


If the complaint is that he's not original enough... why are people bitching about him diverging from the established product?

If the complaint is that he's grabbing these pre-established franchises, and cashing in on them... why are people bitching about his 'lack of originality'.

The obvious answer is that people are just bitching about Boll because everyone does. Hence, no need for consistency.


B) That technical point aside, my criticisms of Boll have nothing whatsoever to do with the games. I've never played of those games. My issues with him are all about the quality of his work, not its subject matter. I despise Uwe Boll because he makes bad movies, and for that I see no reason to cut him any slack at all.


Because he makes better movies than a lot of people, because he makes them on off-Hollywood budgets.

His movies aren't objectively that bad, although they fall down against Holloywood polish. But then - that never seemed like the important part of a movie to me.


C) I fail to see that "House of the Dead" is getting MUCH heavier criticism than "They", aside from a few mild comments that the former sucked more than the latter. You seem to be imagining some big crusade that does not exist.


Check things like Rotten Tomatoes, or the ratings on IMDB. Compare Uwe Boll movies to other objectively-similar movies, and see how Uwe Boll fares. Look back through this thread and see how much anger is directed towards Wes Craven - who is responsible for products no better than Uwe Boll's. I'm not imagining a huge crusade. 'All the cool kids' hate Uwe Boll.


D) Also I fail to see how you can say that we are just dogpiling and not honestly reviewing the material. Do you have information that I don't have, that indicates that I have not watched Uwe Boll's movies, even though I am under the impression that I have? I daresay others in this thread who are able to pick out things they don't like about Boll movies have actually seen those things, too. What proof do you want that we are actually reviewing the material -- would you like us to come to your house to watch your collection right there in front of you? Hooked up to lie detectors, so you'll know we're reviewing it "honestly"?

Have you watched Uwe Boll's movies?

It's kind of irrelevent, of course, you could watch the movie and still just toe the line and regurgitate the accepted mantra. The question would more honestly be 'did you base your opinion on Uwe Boll's movies'?

I watched the third Mummy movie over the weekend. Aside from some money spent on special effects, there is almost no way in which that movie is better than Uwe Boll's canon, and yet I've seen this third Mummy movie reviewed as the best in the series. Where's the hate for the Mummy franchise? Why isn't it being held to the same standards as Uwe Boll?
Gauthier
22-12-2008, 23:16
Thank you for being evidence of exactly the sort of thing I was talking about...

For me, the telling part of this[/] paragraph was: "...his German Tax Law [I]Producers-style writeoff scam...."

In other words, your big complaint about the movie... is absolutely nothing to do with the movie.

Actually it does have a lot to do with the movie which of course you fragrantly chose to ignore. With the German tax law, failed movies are a write-off, just like how the plot of The Producers started off. Which means Boll has more of an incentive to make the film a theatrical farce than to actually make it decent. The fact that he's a hack that makes Ed Wood look like Scorsese means he doesn't have to put much effort into it.

Because House of the Dead had such a devoted following to it's almost Shakespearean scripting and Abelardian ripostes?

So you're blaming the source material for the lack of any creativity on the filmmaker's part then? What about Far Cry or even Bloodrayne, which had fairly established stories in the game? Going to sarcastically call them Shakespearean masterpieces as well?

The "Resident Evil" movies bear about the same amount of resemblence to the game storylines as Boll's product does, and yet you don't see those movies accruing the same kind of feeding frenzy.

It's not flagrant with name recognition and loathing like Boll, but if you look up the internet people aren't any more fond of Paul W.S. Anderson and his RE movies either.

And the reason people bitch about game-to-movie ports... isn't because of Boll, but because of a decade-plus campaign of making movies from games... featuring such high points as "Street Fighter" and "Mortal Kombat". Uwe Boll is - at worst - part of a movement.

Final Fantasy: Advent Children is one example of a movie based off a game that really shows a decent storytelling.

On the other hand - I think it's arguable that Boll has bought new attention to these games, so the game purists should be thanking him.

So much so that Blizzard Entertainment (World of Warcraft) and Hideo Kojima (Metal Gear Solid) have emphatically screamed "HELL FUCK NO" even on rumors that Boll was trying to acquire license rights to their games for moviemaking.
Sirmomo1
22-12-2008, 23:21
Actually it does have a lot to do with the movie which of course you fragrantly chose to ignore. With the German tax law, failed movies are a write-off, just like how the plot of The Producers started off. Which means Boll has more of an incentive to make the film a theatrical farce than to actually make it decent. The fact that he's a hack that makes Ed Wood look like Scorsese means he doesn't have to put much effort into it.


The last time this came up I explained that this isn't true. There is no advantage in his films losing money.
Gauthier
22-12-2008, 23:27
The last time this came up I explained that this isn't true. There is no advantage in his films losing money.

Of course Boll doesn't directly profit from the failure of the film. He gets paid to make a failure, and the investors who sunk their money into it get the write-off. The fact that he's snapping up just about every video game license within reach to use as material for these scams are what piss off people on top of the abysmal scripting and performances he manages to not milk out of the cast.
Grave_n_idle
22-12-2008, 23:28
Actually it does have a lot to do with the movie which of course you fragrantly chose to ignore. With the German tax law, failed movies are a write-off, just like how the plot of The Producers started off. Which means Boll has more of an incentive to make the film a theatrical farce than to actually make it decent. The fact that he's a hack that makes Ed Wood look like Scorsese means he doesn't have to put much effort into it.


I think you are pinning way too much on the write-off angle. It provides a safety-net, but I'm pretty sure the production ensemble wouldn't be too upset if they netted a worldwide blockbuster.

Either way - the intent of the financing... is not a measure of the movie itself, a factor you seem to be happy to ignore.


So you're blaming the source material for the lack of any creativity on the filmmaker's part then? What about Far Cry or even Bloodrayne, which had fairly established stories in the game? Going to sarcastically call them Shakespearean masterpieces as well?


If people are complaining about Uwe Boll not sticking to the script - so to speak - it's not unfair to point out that the script to House of the Dead is basically oh fuck, zombies, bang.

Sticking to that script would have been better, you argue?

I'm not aganst someone re-imagining the product. Much as I love the Dark Knight book, I had very little hope that the Dark Knight movie would be ANYTHING like it... and I wasn't mistaken. But it was still very good, just different.


It's not flagrant with name recognition and loathing like Boll, but if you look up the internet people aren't any more fond of Paul W.S. Anderson and his RE movies either.


Interestingly, your first sentence makes the point.


Final Fantasy: Advent Children is one example of a movie based off a game that really shows a decent storytelling.


It was a beautiful movie, no doubt about it, but I don't really see where you thing the storytelling was above what you get from Boll. Prettier... maybe. More textured? Probably.


So much so that Blizzard Entertainment (World of Warcraft) and Hideo Kojima (Metal Gear Solid) have emphatically screamed "HELL FUCK NO" even on rumors that Boll was trying to acquire license rights to their games for moviemaking.

So... one or two already-extremely-sucessful frnachises have opted out... and?
Grave_n_idle
22-12-2008, 23:32
Of course Boll doesn't directly profit from the failure of the film. He gets paid to make a failure, and the investors who sunk their money into it get the write-off. The fact that he's snapping up just about every video game license within reach to use as material for these scams are what piss off people on top of the abysmal scripting and performances he manages to not milk out of the cast.

You haven't shown where the 'write-off' angle would be preferable over 'multi-billion-dollar-blockbuster'. It seems you're peddling the sort of dogpiling mentality I was talking about.

The scripts aren't as bad as you make out, the performances are often better than you see in Hollywood blockbusters (Armageddon, in particular, had a pretty stellar cast, delivering incredibly bad performances).
Dumb Ideologies
22-12-2008, 23:32
Plotless, badly acted action nonsense with the laughable idea that a single character can somehow defeat an entire army of bad guys without injury, and then tries to cover the previously mentioned flaws with massive explosions, cars and/or boobs.
Greal
22-12-2008, 23:40
You are dead to me.

seriously, it sucked badly.
The_pantless_hero
23-12-2008, 00:13
But I am arguing Boll should be cut some slack. I would say that "They" and "House of the Dead" were similar kinds of films, of about the same quality - and yet "House of the Dead" gets scored half as highly as "They" when it gets reviewed, and garners much heavier criticism.

It's a dogpile. It's not honestly reviewing the material.
You didn't read a damn thing I wrote.
Muravyets
23-12-2008, 00:45
If the complaint is that he's not original enough... why are people bitching about him diverging from the established product?

If the complaint is that he's grabbing these pre-established franchises, and cashing in on them... why are people bitching about his 'lack of originality'.

The obvious answer is that people are just bitching about Boll because everyone does. Hence, no need for consistency.

Because he makes better movies than a lot of people, because he makes them on off-Hollywood budgets.

His movies aren't objectively that bad, although they fall down against Holloywood polish. But then - that never seemed like the important part of a movie to me.



Check things like Rotten Tomatoes, or the ratings on IMDB. Compare Uwe Boll movies to other objectively-similar movies, and see how Uwe Boll fares. Look back through this thread and see how much anger is directed towards Wes Craven - who is responsible for products no better than Uwe Boll's. I'm not imagining a huge crusade. 'All the cool kids' hate Uwe Boll.



Have you watched Uwe Boll's movies?

It's kind of irrelevent, of course, you could watch the movie and still just toe the line and regurgitate the accepted mantra. The question would more honestly be 'did you base your opinion on Uwe Boll's movies'?

I watched the third Mummy movie over the weekend. Aside from some money spent on special effects, there is almost no way in which that movie is better than Uwe Boll's canon, and yet I've seen this third Mummy movie reviewed as the best in the series. Where's the hate for the Mummy franchise? Why isn't it being held to the same standards as Uwe Boll?
Okay, now I know you're just yanking our chains, because you cannot be serious with this shit.

1) Yes, I have seen several Uwe Boll movies JUST LIKE I TOLD YOU I DID IN MY OTHER POST. Gosh, GnI, you couldn't possibly be rushing to judgment without looking at what people actually say, just like you're accusing us of doing, could you?

2) What the fuck are you talking about "where's the hate for the Mummy franchise"? The Mummy franchise never even came up before. Are we now not permitted to criticize one director without mentioning every single other director who might also have made some movies we didn't like?

3) People are NOT complaining about Boll diverging from the original game sources. They are complaining about him ruining the game story lines. If he had diverged from the originals but made good movies, telling good stories, they would likely have forgiven the divergence. I base that on statement by posters in this very thread. If you were actually paying attention instead of just tooting your own snobby horn (and what a thing to be snobby about!), you should have been able to figure that out.

4) The unoriginality complaint is entirely separate from the ruining the source materials complaint. A good moviemaker could tell the game stories with an original style while still remaining true to the sources, but Boll is not a good moviemaker. That's one aspect of the complaint. Another aspect is merely an opinion expressed by some people that an original movie that sucks is less of a failure than a movie that sucks even though it was supposed to be based on good source material. Do you honestly expect me to believe you couldnt' follow those points?

5) Your assertion that it is obvious that we're all just hatin' on the Boll-man for no reason at all is utter bullshit. You have been told precisely what we don't like about him. Rather than allow us our opinions, you choose instead to call us liars, pretty much, by insisting that we've never seen his movies even though I, for one, have specifically said that I have.

I may be pretty harsh in my condemnations of movies that other people like. And I might rib a person for liking a patently bad movie, so long as they know it's in fun. But I'm getting pretty tired of you and Uwe Boll. There is no call for you to insult and question the honesty of people who don't like his work. If you want to like his movies, go ahead, but kindly don't presume to paint yourself as the ultimate arbiter of cinema taste and take it upon yourself to belittle all who disagree with you. Rather, I would invite you to enjoy your membership in a very exclusive club of Uwe Boll fans. It's basically you and Uwe, so there should be more than enough booze for the lot of ya's.
Grave_n_idle
23-12-2008, 01:18
You didn't read a damn thing I wrote.

Unless you posted a response I missed somewhere, I probably read everything you've posted on the topic so far...

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I didn't read it.
Belschaft
23-12-2008, 01:24
I can't live without the new streetfighter movie. I know it'll be crap. But why then? One reason -

http://www.slashgear.com/gallery/data_files/1/4/6/Kristin_KreukChun-LiStreetFighter.jpg

Yes, Kristen Kreuk is playing Chen-Li.
Pure Thought
23-12-2008, 01:32
...
EDIT: By the way, the only reason I know how bad that thing sucked is because I forced myself to sit through it on television. I knew from the trailer that it was a stinker, so I did not spend money to see it. About 10 minutes in, I knew exactly how bad the stink coming off it was going to be, but I watched the whole thing just to prove it to myself. And let me tell you, I had underestimated how bad a giant gorilla movie could possibly get.

And why did I put myself through that torture at all? Just because there was nothing else on tv that night, and it had Adrien Brody in it. Though, to be honest, I wish they'd been showing "The Village" instead. If I had my choice of painfully horrible movies in which Adrien Brody embarrasses himself, I'd pick that one over "King Kong" because at least "The Village" is not brutally murdering and then pissing on the corpse of a good monster movie.


Ah, but you see, the reason you missed the greatness of the film is because you watched it on TV. The small screen meant you didn't get to appreciate the BIGness of it all. On the BIG screen, you get to be BIGged out by the BIGness of the screen, the BIGness of the island, the BIGness of the buildings, the BIGness of the gorilla, the BIGness of the action, the BIGness of the story-line, the BIGness of the performances, the BIGness of the special effects, and indeed, the BIGness of the BIGness that was the BIGness of King Kong.



...and the lack of all that BIGness meant that all you could do was watch with unprotected eyes the BIGness of the BADness of it all.

I'm truly sorry for you.
Grave_n_idle
23-12-2008, 01:44
Okay, now I know you're just yanking our chains, because you cannot be serious with this shit.


Obviously. No one could really go against the hivemind.


1) Yes, I have seen several Uwe Boll movies JUST LIKE I TOLD YOU I DID IN MY OTHER POST. Gosh, GnI, you couldn't possibly be rushing to judgment without looking at what people actually say, just like you're accusing us of doing, could you?


Actually, what you SAID was: "Do you have information that I don't have, that indicates that I have not watched Uwe Boll's movies, even though I am under the impression that I have?"... which is as tortured a way I can think of of responding. Does that mean you are under the impression you've watched them, or you actually HAVE watched them? Them... or one of them?

In a discussion with somoene at work the other day, they told me how much they hated Titanic. When we discussed why, it transpired they'd not actually watched more than the first five minutes, which bored them. People rush to judgements on things all the time, even things they've not actually given a chance.

Am I rushing to judgement on you watching/not watching the movie? No - I just asked. The question was phrased in response to you, obviously, but it applies across the board - how many anti-Boll opinions are being offered... based on how much actual attention to the art?

You, as an artist, I thought would have understood.


2) What the fuck are you talking about "where's the hate for the Mummy franchise"? The Mummy franchise never even came up before. Are we now not permitted to criticize one director without mentioning every single other director who might also have made some movies we didn't like?


I brought up the Mummy franchise. Uwe Boll is being dogpiled, whilst, at the same time, 'Hollywood' fare that is FAR inferior is being released... and gaining COMMENDATION instead of condemnation.

To me - that looks like bias.


3) People are NOT complaining about Boll diverging from the original game sources.


They have been.


4) The unoriginality complaint is entirely separate from the ruining the source materials complaint. A good moviemaker could tell the game stories with an original style while still remaining true to the sources, but Boll is not a good moviemaker.


You know, of course, that Uwe Boll didn't write those stories? House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, Bloodrayne, In the Name of the King, Far Cry, etc. You can say that he is responsible for the production value, and maybe for the directorial choices (as much as those things can be separated from the production ensemble in toto), but 'style' isn't actually the accusation that has been lodged against Boll.


That's one aspect of the complaint. Another aspect is merely an opinion expressed by some people that an original movie that sucks is less of a failure than a movie that sucks even though it was supposed to be based on good source material. Do you honestly expect me to believe you couldnt' follow those points?


I disagree that an original-but-suckass movie is any different from a non-original-but-suckass movie. The War of the Worlds movie was lame. The remake was lame. Originality isn't a factor.

Do I like to see something original? Sure. But original and shit is still shit.


5) Your assertion that it is obvious that we're all just hatin' on the Boll-man for no reason at all is utter bullshit.


I didn't say it was for no reason. I think you all bought what they were selling.


You have been told precisely what we don't like about him.


Yep. Oftentimes, conflicting within a few lines of each other.


Rather than allow us our opinions, you choose instead to call us liars, pretty much, by insisting that we've never seen his movies even though I, for one, have specifically said that I have.


I don't think I said anyone was a liar.


I may be pretty harsh in my condemnations of movies that other people like. And I might rib a person for liking a patently bad movie, so long as they know it's in fun. But I'm getting pretty tired of you and Uwe Boll. There is no call for you to insult and question the honesty of people who don't like his work. If you want to like his movies, go ahead, but kindly don't presume to paint yourself as the ultimate arbiter of cinema taste


I don't think I established myself as the ultimate arbiter of cinema taste either.

Interestingly, you are launching that particular dainty of invective against someone who has said they oppose the 'accepted' mantra. Someone who has set themselves up as - if anything - the ANTI-arbiter.


...Rather, I would invite you to enjoy your membership in a very exclusive club of Uwe Boll fans. It's basically you and Uwe, so there should be more than enough booze for the lot of ya's.

Amusing that you accuse me of being snobby, and finish with something like this.
The_pantless_hero
23-12-2008, 01:47
Unless you posted a response I missed somewhere, I probably read everything you've posted on the topic so far...

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I didn't read it.
Then you didn't comprehend it because you put forward the same argument that my post contradicted.

Why would a movie based on an original premise do better than another based movie based on an established premise and ip? I wonder.. oh yeah, because maybe it was an original idea? Rehashed ideas that bomb bomb harder than original ideas that do. Now I imagine you are going to manage to use the same argument over and over in order to make an assertion truth by repetition.
Ashmoria
23-12-2008, 01:49
i got one...

PINK PANTHER 2 starring steve martin

am i wrong in remembering that his first pink panther movie not only sucked but also had bad box office? does anyone need a sequel to a crappy movie that no one liked and no one saw?
Grave_n_idle
23-12-2008, 01:51
i got one...

PINK PANTHER 2 starring steve martin

am i wrong in remembering that his first pink panther movie not only sucked but also had bad box office? does anyone need a sequel to a crappy movie that no one liked and no one saw?

My mother-in-law liked it. Saw it at the theatre, no less.

I don't know (of) anyone else that liked it, though.
Grave_n_idle
23-12-2008, 01:54
Then you didn't comprehend it because you put forward the same argument that my post contradicted.


You seem to be confusing 'spotted that your argument was crap' with 'didn't comprehend'.


Why would a movie based on an original premise do better than another based movie based on an established premise and ip? I wonder.. oh yeah, because maybe it was an original idea? Rehashed ideas that bomb bomb harder than original ideas that do. Now I imagine you are going to manage to use the same argument over and over in order to make an assertion truth by repetition.

Have you actually paid any attention to cinema, recently?

Established premises are safe product. In general, established premise is where you make your money. Why did you think remakes are so popular... and movies of 'currently-popular' books?
Pure Thought
23-12-2008, 01:58
...

Why does "The Color Purple" sound familiar? Did people really die from watching Battlefield Earth?

...

The film was based on this book: The Color Purple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Color_Purple). I can't speak for the book although books usually are better than their films, but this film ... :gas:


OK, I should have elaborated, for those with a decalcifying sarcasm bone. People died from trying to make the pain of watching stop --

:headbang:

-- and in the stampedes of people trying to escape the cinema.

That's not counting the people who grew old and died in their seats, waiting for it to finally, finally end.

The ones I pity are those who survived the film, and now walk around with their imaginations seared and their personalities ravaged.

Oh wait, that includes me. :eek2:
Pure Thought
23-12-2008, 02:05
Plotless, badly acted action nonsense with the laughable idea that a single character can somehow defeat an entire army of bad guys without injury, and then tries to cover the previously mentioned flaws with massive explosions, cars and/or boobs.



Wow! You've just dismissed about half the bad movies ever made in one sentence.

And your description includes all those Steven Seagal movies and Jean Claude van Damme movies. That makes you the movie-meister! :hail:
Lord Tothe
23-12-2008, 02:26
You seem to be confusing 'spotted that your argument was crap' with 'didn't comprehend'.



Have you actually paid any attention to cinema, recently?

Established premises are safe product. In general, established premise is where you make your money. Why did you think remakes are so popular... and movies of 'currently-popular' books?

The studio with the most original material seems to be Pixar. I wonder how much time remains before Disney sucks all the life out of them.
Muravyets
23-12-2008, 02:32
Ah, but you see, the reason you missed the greatness of the film is because you watched it on TV. The small screen meant you didn't get to appreciate the BIGness of it all. On the BIG screen, you get to be BIGged out by the BIGness of the screen, the BIGness of the island, the BIGness of the buildings, the BIGness of the gorilla, the BIGness of the action, the BIGness of the story-line, the BIGness of the performances, the BIGness of the special effects, and indeed, the BIGness of the BIGness that was the BIGness of King Kong.



...and the lack of all that BIGness meant that all you could do was watch with unprotected eyes the BIGness of the BADness of it all.

I'm truly sorry for you.
That'll larn me -- next time, spend the money. :D
Muravyets
23-12-2008, 02:35
Obviously. No one could really go against the hivemind.

<snip continuation of the same nonsense>
On the basis of the above opening sentences, I will now dismiss you.

I read the rest of your post. It is redundant to the point of being content-free. But it hardly matters, as your opening is so ridiculous that it pretty much renders you not worth engaging. You are clearly not presenting a serious argument. You have wasted enough of my time.

The bottom line is this: You are as bad at critiquing films as Uwe Boll is at making them.
Gray Army
23-12-2008, 02:58
I can live without:

300(Epic movie? more like Epic FAILURE!) Over-hyped it was, disappointment to ancient battles it was, the History Channels documentation was more exciting than this piece of garbage!
Saw(Never saw it, but it's not a war movie)
Batman movies
Star Trek movies/Tv shows(though I might check out the new movie coming out, since they made it look cooler and more action-packed)
Harry Potter Series
Twilight(Never saw it, but it's not a war movie)


Movies I can't live without:
Star Wars Saga
Indianna Jones Saga
Jurassic Park trilogy
Alien movies
AvP movies
Predator movies
Amor Pulchritudo
23-12-2008, 04:50
Movies I can live without? None. I wouldn't wish for a single movie to be non-existent, even the terrible ones.
The Parkus Empire
23-12-2008, 05:02
Movies I can live without? None. I wouldn't wish for a single movie to be non-existent, even the terrible ones.

Right-o!

http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/DrDrew/reefer-madness.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305466661.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://blogs.citypages.com/amadzine/amadeus.jpg
Sirmomo1
23-12-2008, 05:02
Of course Boll doesn't directly profit from the failure of the film. He gets paid to make a failure, and the investors who sunk their money into it get the write-off. The fact that he's snapping up just about every video game license within reach to use as material for these scams are what piss off people on top of the abysmal scripting and performances he manages to not milk out of the cast.

Perhaps I should change that to "no one gains anything if his movies fail". Tax write offs are a large part of funding many movies but there is no tax write off scheme that leaves you better off for losing money.
Amor Pulchritudo
23-12-2008, 05:12
The Parkus Empire, even though in your opinion (and many people's opinions) those films may not be great, they are still essential to the growth of the art form. While some may not like Picasso, his cubism influenced the artwork of today. Whether it be puke on a page or the most amazing portrait in the world, there is no reason for the artwork to not exist. You simply choose to like it or not, you choose to learn from it or not.
Muravyets
23-12-2008, 05:25
Right-o!

http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/DrDrew/reefer-madness.jpg
A cultural icon, essential to an understanding of modern America. Every kid should see "Reefer Madness," though perhaps not for the reason its makers intended.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305466661.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
A cinema classic. Do you have any idea how many years this film held the Golden Turkey award? (I'm asking because I don't know.) And rightly so! No one can truly understand what movies really are until they have seen "Plan 9 From Outer Space." If a movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" is the 10 on the movie greatness scale, then "Plan 9" is the zero. You need both to make the scale complete, you know.

All moviemakers should study Ed Wood. Especially Uwe Boll. If he did, his movies might be worth watching once in a while. It would give him something to aspire to. :D

http://blogs.citypages.com/amadzine/amadeus.jpg
Okay, "Amadeus" is just another costume flick -- and based on a particularly pretentious play -- and it is nowhere near being the icon of culture or benchmark of the artform that the other two movies are, but in fact, it is still quite good. Or at least, it's not bad. It is casually entertaining, pretty to look at, and has a killer score. What more can one reasonably ask?
Intangelon
23-12-2008, 07:44
I'd strongly disagree; an integral part of the plot is Moore's take on the superhero genre, and the place of superheroes/vigilantes in 'real' society. The only comic mentioned directly is The Black Freighter, sure, but Moore's taking a look (swipe?) at superhero comics, and 'examining' superhero-ness, through the murder of the Comedian. Indeed, Moore's continued on a similar theme with his Top Ten/Smax comics.

But don't take my word on it, hear from the man himself:


Obviously, 1980's Cold War politics, the threat of nuclear annihilation, and other themes, are in Watchmen also (and arguably take pride of place).


Quite right too.

I just don't see how a film adaptation will do the comic justice.

Fair enough.
Minoriteeburg
23-12-2008, 07:46
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/149/3065~Night-of-the-Living-Dead-Posters.jpg
Intangelon
23-12-2008, 08:40
Okay, "Amadeus" is just another costume flick -- and based on a particularly pretentious play -- and it is nowhere near being the icon of culture or benchmark of the artform that the other two movies are, but in fact, it is still quite good. Or at least, it's not bad. It is casually entertaining, pretty to look at, and has a killer score. What more can one reasonably ask?

Pretentious? Was that even possible in the 80s?

Other than that, I completely agree.
Knights of Liberty
23-12-2008, 09:10
Rocky Horror Picture Show.


Fuck. That. "Movie".
Wilgrove
23-12-2008, 09:11
Rocky Horror Picture Show.


Fuck. That. "Movie".

Don't! The movie may actually like it, and it'll want a reach around.
Knights of Liberty
23-12-2008, 09:12
Right-o!

http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/DrDrew/reefer-madness.jpg


Fuck off:p

Reefer Madness is arguablly one of THE MOST amussing movies I have ever seen in my life. And I mean that.
SaintB
23-12-2008, 09:51
Don't! The movie may actually like it, and it'll want a reach around.

The first time I saw it I was like :eek:

The second time I saw it i was like :rolleyes:

The third time I saw it I wanted to do the time warp to see if it would send me back to before I watched it so that I could do something else.

The fourth time I saw it.. I sort liked it :(
Laerod
23-12-2008, 11:43
The problem with the assertion that Boll is all about ripping off these video game ideas falls down, immediately, when you consider that his first video-game-port, was something like his tenth movie.

Okay - you don't like what he does with video games, but you're misrepresenting that as something it's not.

It also seems that you're claiming Boll 'mutilated' House of the Dead... but also... that he's somehow stealing the product from the established game franchise. He can't be doing both. He's either faithful to it, or he's not - if he's faithful, you have an argument he's swiping the franchise, if he's mangling it, you have an argument he's being original.

But I am arguing Boll should be cut some slack. I would say that "They" and "House of the Dead" were similar kinds of films, of about the same quality - and yet "House of the Dead" gets scored half as highly as "They" when it gets reviewed, and garners much heavier criticism.

It's a dogpile. It's not honestly reviewing the material.While this is true, Uwe Boll still creates dreadful movies. I've been willing to cut him slack because plenty of the whining is done by an unpleasable fanbase. However, Alone in the Dark was crap with special effects and Christian Slater.
Sudova
23-12-2008, 12:50
There have been so many bad, overhyped, overrated, garbage movies out there...

It's hard to pick just one.

one dozen, that is.
Pure Thought
23-12-2008, 13:28
Right-o!

http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/DrDrew/reefer-madness.jpg

...

Thank you! I tried to tell someone about this film not long ago, but they wouldn't believe me -- thought I was making it up.

Now, if you could just help a guy out and come up with something about the old "Duck and Cover" public service films ... :)
Renner20
23-12-2008, 13:43
One Word

Zulu! Zulu! Zulu!
Pure Thought
23-12-2008, 13:50
The first time I saw it I was like :eek:

The second time I saw it i was like :rolleyes:

The third time I saw it I wanted to do the time warp to see if it would send me back to before I watched it so that I could do something else.

The fourth time I saw it.. I sort liked it :(

Now look what you've done! If you'd watched Reefer Madness you'd know what happened to all those wild-eyed debauched no-good pot-smoking heroin-injecting weirdos: the first one's free, the first few puffs are so-so and make you cough, but then -- THE MADNESS HITS YOU! It takes you over, and you begin to claw at the walls and rip your clothes off and scream, desperate for more and more and MORE!

Reefer Madness isn't only about drugs, it's also a metaphor for life. It's especially a metaphor for watching films like Rocky Horror Picture Show.

You're in for it now. A week from now you won't be posting here anymore. You'll have bought a copy of Rocky Horror..., and you'll be watching it over and over, not eating or drinking anything, not sleeping, not washing or changing your clothes, just watching the film while spittle dribbles down your chin and dries there, your red-rimmed eyes bugging out of your head and your fingernails and hair growing longer and longer. You'll look like that guy in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and you may even start sculpting scenes from Rocky Horror... in mashed potatoes. You'll start reciting lines from the film along with the characters -- and then, just a split-second before the characters. Finally you'll run amok in your nearest shopping mall, trying to do unspeakable things to everyone you meet (while reciting lines from the film at them). The authorities will have to lock you in a padded room where you'll be kept forever -- still reciting the dialogue of Rocky Horror Picture Show over and over at the top of your voice.

You should've watched Reefer Madness, shouldn't you?
Muravyets
23-12-2008, 15:14
Thank you! I tried to tell someone about this film not long ago, but they wouldn't believe me -- thought I was making it up.

Now, if you could just help a guy out and come up with something about the old "Duck and Cover" public service films ... :)
Here ya go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvChsvdPGjA&feature=related

that page has lots of related clips, too.

Also, "The Atomic Cafe", a must-see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083590/

A page of clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-DeHE1V-uk

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to imagine this shit. You have to see it with your own eyes. It was like when I showed my 20-something brother "Dr. Strangelove" for the first time. He loved that movie (as he should) right up until the closing credits. Then it hit him that he was looking at archive flim clips of a seemingly endless series of different above ground nuclear test explosions. The look on his face was something else. And all he said was, "Holy shit, there were so many?"

Yeah, babe, why do you think so many cancers are so common?
Cameroi
23-12-2008, 19:59
movies, like television, i can live without entirely just fine. there have been a few pretty darn good ones. i'm not denying there have nor that there can be. but that is another matter. living without i tend to take a bit more litterally then perhapse it is intended, but "when all ways are lost the way is found", is something i've actually experienced personally, more then once in my own actual this life.
Intangelon
23-12-2008, 20:03
Now look what you've done! If you'd watched Reefer Madness you'd know what happened to all those wild-eyed debauched no-good pot-smoking heroin-injecting weirdos: the first one's free, the first few puffs are so-so and make you cough, but then -- THE MADNESS HITS YOU! It takes you over, and you begin to claw at the walls and rip your clothes off and scream, desperate for more and more and MORE!

Reefer Madness isn't only about drugs, it's also a metaphor for life. It's especially a metaphor for watching films like Rocky Horror Picture Show.

You're in for it now. A week from now you won't be posting here anymore. You'll have bought a copy of Rocky Horror..., and you'll be watching it over and over, not eating or drinking anything, not sleeping, not washing or changing your clothes, just watching the film while spittle dribbles down your chin and dries there, your red-rimmed eyes bugging out of your head and your fingernails and hair growing longer and longer. You'll look like that guy in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and you may even start sculpting scenes from Rocky Horror... in mashed potatoes. You'll start reciting lines from the film along with the characters -- and then, just a split-second before the characters. Finally you'll run amok in your nearest shopping mall, trying to do unspeakable things to everyone you meet (while reciting lines from the film at them). The authorities will have to lock you in a padded room where you'll be kept forever -- still reciting the dialogue of Rocky Horror Picture Show over and over at the top of your voice.

You should've watched Reefer Madness, shouldn't you?

Who knew? Rocky Horror was the WoW of it's day.

Actually, you're not THAT far off. I had a friend who "landed" a "role" in the Captiol Hill (Seattle) Neptune Theater's every-weekend "productions" of Rocky Horror. He did little else but work at his job during the week and hurl toast on the weekends. For a year. Literally did almost nothing else. It was sad. Half coincidentally, when he got off weed, he got off Rocky. That's why I think weed in moderation is fine, but constant use saps the industry right out of you. That's why Protestants hate the stuff.
Grave_n_idle
23-12-2008, 22:22
The studio with the most original material seems to be Pixar. I wonder how much time remains before Disney sucks all the life out of them.

Got a few years, yet - Pixar have their projects set up until like, 2015, or something.

Of course, Pixar have already returned to their superstar franchise (Toy Story), and are set to return to it AGAIN within the next 4 or 5 movies.

At least Pixar still approaches sequels as actual projects - unlike Disney, who get a successful formula and proceed to make cut budget versions of it until that well dries up.
Grave_n_idle
23-12-2008, 22:24
On the basis of the above opening sentences, I will now dismiss you.

I read the rest of your post. It is redundant to the point of being content-free. But it hardly matters, as your opening is so ridiculous that it pretty much renders you not worth engaging. You are clearly not presenting a serious argument. You have wasted enough of my time.

The bottom line is this: You are as bad at critiquing films as Uwe Boll is at making them.

Where did your 'opinion' argument go? Only works if we agree with you?

And yet you accused me of being the snobby one. How that must chafe.
Muravyets
24-12-2008, 01:16
Where did your 'opinion' argument go? Only works if we agree with you?

And yet you accused me of being the snobby one. How that must chafe.

No, you can disagree with me. What you can't do is say meaningless, dumbass crap like what I quoted. I am aware that you either cannot see or do not care how badly constructed your arguments are, but if you are going to insist on presenting an argument about every little damned thing, then I do insist you make an actual argument, not the dismissive, empty stuff you've been posting in your defense of Uwe Boll. I stand by my conclusion that, although you started and pursued this argument, you actually contributed nothing much to it, and that you are no longer worth engaging on the subject of Uwe Boll.

By the way, you are also no longer worth engaging on the subject of you, too.
Grave_n_idle
24-12-2008, 01:49
No, you can disagree with me. What you can't do is say meaningless, dumbass crap like what I quoted. I am aware that you either cannot see or do not care how badly constructed your arguments are, but if you are going to insist on presenting an argument about every little damned thing, then I do insist you make an actual argument, not the dismissive, empty stuff you've been posting in your defense of Uwe Boll. I stand by my conclusion that, although you started and pursued this argument, you actually contributed nothing much to it, and that you are no longer worth engaging on the subject of Uwe Boll.

By the way, you are also no longer worth engaging on the subject of you, too.

Well, someone's just not getting into the christmas spirit this year.

I didn't start the argument. Uwe Boll was already getting the usual pinata treatment when I commented. Unless - by 'started the argument', you mean I was the first person to NOT join in the anti-Uwe circlejerk.

If pointing out that you're attributing to Boll flaws in movies that aren't his doing... like the writing, in products he either directed or produced, is 'dismissive' and 'empty' to you, so be it. I can totally understand why you don't like Uwe Boll's contributions... if you don't even know what they are.

You started out attacking me, you've dismissed any responses.

Your mind is made up, and you know what? That's okay.

Happy holidays.
Holy Cheese and Shoes
24-12-2008, 01:53
*passes round some festive hugs*
The Parkus Empire
24-12-2008, 04:26
Thank you! I tried to tell someone about this film not long ago, but they wouldn't believe me -- thought I was making it up.

You can get the film in color--it has green smoke!

Now, if you could just help a guy out and come up with something about the old "Duck and Cover" public service films ... :)

It is on YouTube; it is also a card in the most excellent board game: Twilight Struggle.
The_pantless_hero
24-12-2008, 04:33
*passes round some festive hugs*

*calls the police*
Muravyets
24-12-2008, 04:40
*passes round some festive hugs*
*accepts a hug*

*sends out a holiday wish that Santa will bring GnI a clue*

*pours self and HCS some rum eggnog and turns down the sound on GnI*
SaintB
24-12-2008, 06:05
Now look what you've done! If you'd watched Reefer Madness you'd know what happened to all those wild-eyed debauched no-good pot-smoking heroin-injecting weirdos: the first one's free, the first few puffs are so-so and make you cough, but then -- THE MADNESS HITS YOU! It takes you over, and you begin to claw at the walls and rip your clothes off and scream, desperate for more and more and MORE!

Reefer Madness isn't only about drugs, it's also a metaphor for life. It's especially a metaphor for watching films like Rocky Horror Picture Show.

You're in for it now. A week from now you won't be posting here anymore. You'll have bought a copy of Rocky Horror..., and you'll be watching it over and over, not eating or drinking anything, not sleeping, not washing or changing your clothes, just watching the film while spittle dribbles down your chin and dries there, your red-rimmed eyes bugging out of your head and your fingernails and hair growing longer and longer. You'll look like that guy in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and you may even start sculpting scenes from Rocky Horror... in mashed potatoes. You'll start reciting lines from the film along with the characters -- and then, just a split-second before the characters. Finally you'll run amok in your nearest shopping mall, trying to do unspeakable things to everyone you meet (while reciting lines from the film at them). The authorities will have to lock you in a padded room where you'll be kept forever -- still reciting the dialogue of Rocky Horror Picture Show over and over at the top of your voice.

You should've watched Reefer Madness, shouldn't you?

Actually, I will probably ever watch the movie in its entirety ever again.
Grave_n_idle
24-12-2008, 06:13
*accepts a hug*

*sends out a holiday wish that Santa will bring GnI a clue*

*pours self and HCS some rum eggnog and turns down the sound on GnI*

Eh... whatever it is, I hope it gets better / goes away / the swelling goes down.

*sends festive wishes*
Pure Thought
24-12-2008, 13:00
You can get the film in color--it has green smoke!



It is on YouTube; it is also a card in the most excellent board game: Twilight Struggle.


Green smoke? Of course it does. And doubtless if they ever remake it, the smoke clouds will have air-brushed "evil eyes" in them.

Thanks to Muravyets I now have the links I need, but a board game? I'm afraid I just get -- sorry -- bored with them. (No really, I'm so sorry, but, it was just there!)

Anyway, I'd like to wish everybody a really good Christmas, or whatever other holiday you're celebrating. And whatever you do, avoid the TV: it's going to be full of movies and most of them will be the most appalling load on hot-and-steaming that the world has seen.

Hmmm, that means the TV Guide is set to be a ready-made list for this thread.
Yootopia
24-12-2008, 13:01
That last "Indiana Jones" film.
Lacadaemon
24-12-2008, 13:02
Working Girl.
No Names Left Damn It
24-12-2008, 13:11
All films. I don't need films to survive.