State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 26

[Tron Bonne]

The difference is, Saving Private Ryan told a compelling story while Titanic turned it into a bland generic love story.

That's beside the point.

 

[Decepticonus]

Overthinking 101. If you took that back from Titanic, you took it, and probably films in general, way too seriously. Storytellers use major events to tell personal stories in that manner all the time. Do you find Saving Private Ryan bad since the story focuses on one person as opposed to the entirety of World War II? There are broad stories, and their are closer to Earth and personal stories. Not every story needs to explore the broadest possible aspect of an event.

Well, I was only 11 when that movie came out so NO, I did not think of it like that all back then.

The difference is, Saving Private Ryan told a compelling story while Titanic turned it into a bland generic love story.

Exactly. Honestly, I feel you could tell the love story WITHOUT the Titanic.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Well, I was only 11 when that movie came out so NO, I did not think of it like that all back then.

And...? What does that even matter, obviously you think it now.

Exactly. Honestly, I feel you could tell the love story WITHOUT the Titanic.

If it's just a case of you not finding it an interesting story, that's one thing, but that's not really what you were going on about. You basically trashed the movie because it trivialized the event of the Titanic by focusing on a love story.

 

[Schlosser85]

Because that's what it does.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Because that's what it does.

No more than Saving Private Ryan trivializes WWII by focusing on Ryan and his family over the entire event of WWII or any other story that tells a personal story against the backdrop of a major event. That's the point. Like I said, if the point is just that the story isn't good that's one thing, but these things do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

 

[DyeLorean]

I think Titanic works because "the" tragedy, the sinking event, was exceptionally well told. Every step when everything starts going wrong, from the iceberg, all the way to the sinking of the ship, was a terrifying experience and Cameron did an amazing job at showing that. I love those movies that makes you ask "what would I do in that situation?", and Titanic is a good example of that. I couldn't care less about the love story. It was fine, I guess. Classic stuff. But everything around is what made it work, I think.

 

[Decepticonus]

And...? What does that even matter, obviously you think it now.



If it's just a case of you not finding it an interesting story, that's one thing, but that's not really what you were going on about. You basically trashed the movie because it trivialized the event of the Titanic by focusing on a love story.

Well you were acting like I thought that when I saw it, when I didn't. In addition, you felt I over-think all movies when honestly I don't. I can give you a list of movies that most critics hate that I love, when they're the ones over thinking it. Originally I simply didn't like it because I was an 11 year old boy, plain as that. As I grew up and watched it again is when I noticed what bothered me about it. And so what if I trashed it. More than happy to trash that over-rated cliche' love story again. It did trivialize the event AND was not interesting. The love story of two who can't be together, from different backgrounds. Same time James Cameron isn't the best story teller. I like his films but the stories are usually generic (Aliens & Avatar anybody).
I will be honest I have yet to see Private Ryan and honestly... don't care much to see it. As much as I love history, war movies in general do very little for me.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Well you were acting like I thought that when I saw it, when I didn't.

Not sure how you got that from what I said, but I didn't mean it in that way.

In addition, you felt I over-think all movies when honestly I don't. I can give you a list of movies that most critics hate that I love, when they're the ones over thinking it. Originally I simply didn't like it because I was an 11 year old boy, plain as that. As I grew up and watched it again is when I noticed what bothered me about it. And so what if I trashed it. More than happy to trash that over-rated cliche' love story again. It did trivialize the event AND was not interesting. The love story of two who can't be together, from different backgrounds. Same time James Cameron isn't the best story teller. I like his films but the stories are usually generic (Aliens & Avatar anybody).
I will be honest I have yet to see Private Ryan and honestly... don't care much to see it. As much as I love history, war movies in general do very little for me.

Then maybe I should say you overthink period films.

 

[Greens]

I fail to see how Titanic trivializes the disaster. Cameron shows the devastating effects of the disaster by focusing on a handful of characters who were there. That's how every single movie works.

 

[Victarion]

I didn't mind the midichlorians explanation for the Force and I don't think it harms Yoda's take on the force in Episode VI, since in our world you have some people who're spiritual, some who put more faith in hard science, and some who like a bit of both.

 

[Schlosser85]

I fail to see how Titanic trivializes the disaster. Cameron shows the devastating effects of the disaster by focusing on a handful of characters who were there. That's how every single movie works.

I guess my issue is it focuses on uninteresting one-dimensional characters in a bland love story.

 

[Schlosser85]

I didn't mind the midichlorians explanation for the Force and I don't think it harms Yoda's take on the force in Episode VI, since in our world you have some people who're spiritual, some who put more faith in hard science, and some who like a bit of both.

Believing in the Force and being a Jedi aren't necessarily the same thing anyway. Maz in TFA says she's not a Jedi, but she believes in the Force and seems attuned to it. Maybe she has unsung Force abilities, but I just had the impression she's a spiritually attuned person.

As for the midichlorian thing, I kind of roll my eyes at it a little bit, it's like a pseudo-scientific explanation of something that didn't need to be explained, but I don't get up in arms about it. The prequels had far bigger problems.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I'm more angry at Titanic because of James Cameron's lies. Especially:

1. That they jut let the lower class people die, which is pure bs. Many upper and middle class men sacrificed their own lives to save women and children from all classes.

But I guess it's more popular to show rich people as monsters than human beings (I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of evil rich people out there...just read about the worst robber barons in US history if you want to ruin a good day). I just wish limousine liberals could see their own hypocrisy.

2. That William McMaster Murdoch was a villain. The studio apologized for that one, but Cameron didn't.

It's just more of the typical Hollywood bs: historical heroes are in reality *******s and murderers like Che Guevara etc. Are noble and heroic figures. And it's not just Hollyweirdoes either, some filmmakers from my own country did the same thing in a movie that came out some years ago. They portrayed a historical person as a coward. His family members were hurt.

 

[Decepticonus]

I didn't mind the midichlorians explanation for the Force and I don't think it harms Yoda's take on the force in Episode VI, since in our world you have some people who're spiritual, some who put more faith in hard science, and some who like a bit of both.

Yead midichlorians don't bother me either, it was this scientific approach to it. Plus, it served its purpose of explaining Anakin is so powerful, more powerful than Yoda. What was Qui-Gonn supposed to say "I feel more force within Anakin", it just doesn't sound right.

I'm more angry at Titanic because of James Cameron's lies. Especially:

1. That they jut let the lower class people die, which is pure bs. Many upper and middle class men sacrificed their own lives to save women and children from all classes.

But I guess it's more popular to show rich people as monsters than human beings (I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of evil rich people out there...just read about the worst robber barons in US history if you want to ruin a good day). I just wish limousine liberals could see their own hypocrisy.

2. That William McMaster Murdoch was a villain. The studio apologized for that one, but Cameron didn't.

It's just more of the typical Hollywood bs: historical heroes are in reality *******s and murderers like Che Guevara etc. Are noble and heroic figures. And it's not just Hollyweirdoes either, some filmmakers from my own country did the same thing in a movie that came out some years ago. They portrayed a historical person as a coward. His family members were hurt.

Yeah, that bothers me alot about Cameron. That man's networth is $700 million and he loves bashing the rich alot in his films. Every villain gets trivialized into this dumb right-wing, militaristic, rich, corporate power. Ugh, I mean trust me I am no conservative but this **** gets tiring.

 

[Brother Jack]

Yead midichlorians don't bother me either, it was this scientific approach to it. Plus, it served its purpose of explaining Anakin is so powerful, more powerful than Yoda. What was Qui-Gonn supposed to say "I feel more force within Anakin", it just doesn't sound right.

Yes. Or better yet, have Anakin actually display that he is exceptionally strong with the force. Using midichlorians to explain that is the old mistake of telling instead of showing. And it does against the idea implicit in the original films that, essentially, anyone could be a Jedi. Yes, Luke did have hereditary predilection for the force beyond what most would have, but there was never a sense that the force was shut out from everyone. Some were more attuned than others but it was still open. Boiling down force sensitivity to something as exclusive and reductive as bacterial organisms in your blood cells takes that away and makes being a Jedi a lot more boring.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Yeah, that bothers me alot about Cameron. That man's networth is $700 million and he loves bashing the rich alot in his films. Every villain gets trivialized into this dumb right-wing, militaristic, rich, corporate power. Ugh, I mean trust me I am no conservative but this **** gets tiring.

And then you have Joss Whedon, Ben Affleck, Paul Verhoeven etc.

Hollywood actor (sitting on golden toilet): "Wow, capitalism is pure evil! (Wipes his butt with dollar bills). Think about all those poor people...honey! Did you install the electrical fence today?"

Wife: "The eco-friendly one?"

Actor (flushes toilet): "Yes, we must do everything in our power to save mother earth (flushes again). We don't want to be like those rich *******s you see on the movie screen (washes hands in champagne, flushes toilet on the way out). Jives, you ***** bastard, where is my foie gras? "

 

[Leenie]

Yeah, that bothers me alot about Cameron. That man's networth is $700 million and he loves bashing the rich alot in his films. Every villain gets trivialized into this dumb right-wing, militaristic, rich, corporate power. Ugh, I mean trust me I am no conservative but this **** gets tiring.

Welcome to pretty much ALL of the entertainment industry. Full of hypocrites and egomaniacs.

Lots of actors in Hollywood call for strict gun control for the masses, yet a lot of them make money off action movies where they make guns look cool. That's the current "hypocrisy trend" that I'm seeing at the moment.

Basically what I'm saying is that James Cameron is a huge hypocrite. He's far from being the only one in the entertainment industry, though.

 

[Decepticonus]

Welcome to pretty much ALL of the entertainment industry. Full of hypocrites and egomaniacs.

Lots of actors in Hollywood call for strict gun control for the masses, yet a lot of them make money off action movies where they make guns look cool. That's the current "hypocrisy trend" that I'm seeing at the moment.

Basically what I'm saying is that James Cameron is a huge hypocrite. He's far from being the only one in the entertainment industry, though.

Well yeah I knew that. Sean Penn anyone?

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Welcome to pretty much ALL of the entertainment industry. Full of hypocrites and egomaniacs.

Lots of actors in Hollywood call for strict gun control for the masses, yet a lot of them make money off action movies where they make guns look cool. That's the current "hypocrisy trend" that I'm seeing at the moment.

Basically what I'm saying is that James Cameron is a huge hypocrite. He's far from being the only one in the entertainment industry, though.

What's sad is that some people look to celebrities when it comes to political opinions etc. "Actie McActorson said that we should ban breathing because of global warming and stuff. I agree because he's got a nice ass"

Celebrity worship is disgusting. And now, unpopular opinion time:

Deadpool still looks like crap and should be called Try Hard With a Vengeance.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Well yeah I knew that. Sean Penn anyone?

The hurricane Katrina pr stunt?

 

[Decepticonus]

Deadpool still looks like crap and should be called Try Hard With a Vengeance.

O RLY?!

Please enlighten me, I'm not a die hard Deadpool fan but I am looking forward to this even though I hate all cbm's from FOX.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I think so.

To me, it looks like they hired a 12 year old boy to write the script, lots of vulgar (and childish) language, "fun" death scenes and crap like that. Just because a movie is rated R, doesn't mean that they need to have American Pie-style humor or Kill Bill levels of violence.

It's not that I'm a wimp when it comes to violent scenes (I've seen a lot of violent stuff in my life, both fictional and real. I'm a victim of violence, I've witnessed violence against other people), I'm just not a fan of almost pornographic violence, if you know what I mean? One example is the fight scene in Watchmen where they stab people in the neck and break bones in slow motion. Another is 300 and Kick-Ass. I know that it hurts to get punched in the face, but I don't need to see the nose get ripped off. I know that bullets pierce flesh, but I don't need to see all the details.

I don't think violence and death should be shown as something "kewl". Like I said, I'm not a wimp...I think stories from WW2 are exciting as hell, and the nazis needed a good kicking, but I don't think it's fun that people where killed.

I want to borrow a quote from the movie, to describe the movie: "looks like a testicle with teeth".

 

[Greens]

I also think Deadpool looks like crap, but I completely disagree with Goshdarn Batman on the reasons why.

The violence doesn't bother me. It's the humor, the marketing and the overall feel of the movie so far. It looks like they're trying very hard to cram the movie full of jokes of which 1/4 sort of lands. I don't need Deadpool to be this joke machine where everything on screen gets a punchline. Outdated pop culture references and poop jokes.... did the writers of Family Guy get this gig?

As for the marketing, why in God's name did they go with the faux-homoerotic angle? Him posing in front of the fireplace, a whole poster dedicated to his ass.

I get it, the makers of this movie (and Ryan Reynolds most of all) are trying to subvert the comic book genre by breaking the fourth wall literally and figuratively. I just don't think they need to be this childish about it.

 

[-Arya-]

I also think Deadpool looks like crap, but I completely disagree with Goshdarn Batman on the reasons why.

The violence doesn't bother me. It's the humor, the marketing and the overall feel of the movie so far. It looks like they're trying very hard to cram the movie full of jokes of which 1/4 sort of lands. I don't need Deadpool to be this joke machine where everything on screen gets a punchline. Outdated pop culture references and poop jokes.... did the writers of Family Guy get this gig?

As for the marketing, why in God's name did they go with the faux-homoerotic angle? Him posing in front of the fireplace, a whole poster dedicated to his ass.

I get it, the makers of this movie (and Ryan Gosling most of all) are trying to subvert the comic book genre by breaking the fourth wall literally and figuratively. I just don't think they need to be this childish about it.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I also think Deadpool looks like crap, but I completely disagree with Goshdarn Batman on the reasons why.

The violence doesn't bother me. It's the humor, the marketing and the overall feel of the movie so far. It looks like they're trying very hard to cram the movie full of jokes of which 1/4 sort of lands. I don't need Deadpool to be this joke machine where everything on screen gets a punchline. Outdated pop culture references and poop jokes.... did the writers of Family Guy get this gig?

As for the marketing, why in God's name did they go with the faux-homoerotic angle? Him posing in front of the fireplace, a whole poster dedicated to his ass.

I get it, the makers of this movie (and Ryan Gosling most of all) are trying to subvert the comic book genre by breaking the fourth wall literally and figuratively. I just don't think they need to be this childish about it.

You may disagree with me, but I agree with you on everything you wrote in this post