Things you're tired of seeing in movies
- Thread starter Joosh
- Start date
p51
Sr Member
I once talked to him about an idea I wanted him to pitch, sort of a flip on that Eddie Murphy movie, 'Boomerang' where a woman who's always made the man she's dating change have the reverse happen to her. The guy, who just spins her spurs all the way, slowly insists that she sever ties with her 'booring and obnoxious' friends, changes her entire style for him (they move in together and of course all her furniture just has to go) and how she needs to stop relying on her parents so much.
In other words, the opposite of what most longterm relationships (and all marriages) do to men.
He snickered, said he got what I meant by all this and said, "But did you ever stop to think that such a movie would be a comedy about domestic abuse?" he explained that if a man did to a woman what many women do to men in a relationship or marriage, that's called abuse.
:eek
That hit me like lightning. He was right!
I then said there was still a movie in there somewhere, where that exact point could be made. He again said he understood where I was going with this and as a married man agreed (as he, too, had to get rid of all his furniture when he married, and had to cut ties with many of his friends, just like I and many other married men did), but you can't show the failings of women because nobody would bankroll such a film. And why? Because women wouldn't let men see it.
It was a real revelation.
Even "black" universities, like Howard, has white students - it's just that they're in the minority.But 50% ain't 100%.
With >50% Asians at the major UCs that makes whites a minority as well.
Anyway I think it's more desirable for Asians to claim a UC campus than establishing, say, Sir Run Run Shaw University in San Francisco.
Just sayin'
mattycsi
Master Member
Good point, didn't they take white woman Anne Lewis and turn her into a black dude, Jack Lewis in the new Robocop? And that was trash.
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, but nobody really cared that much. The real problem with that film was, ironically, it's greatest artistic strength (albeit an unintentional one).
Whereas the original film satirized various aspects of 80s corporate and commercial culture, the remake depicted how a group of individuals, each of whom seems smart and capable on their own, could come together to design a product collectively that ultimately doesn't work.
I'm talking, of course, about the film itself, rather than the character of Robocop.
p51
Sr Member
This threadis called, "Things you're tired of seeing in movies" And I think the post above by Solo4114 is an excellent example. I am sick of remakes that don't contribute anything. Robocop was really good satire for its time. This remake, I'm still unclear what the intent was.
I don't hate all remakes (John Carpenter's 'The Thing' is an amazing remake, and much closer to the original concept the first film was based on anyway) and I'm okay if they give you something new.
the Robocop re-make... Man, why?
I don't hate all remakes (John Carpenter's 'The Thing' is an amazing remake, and much closer to the original concept the first film was based on anyway) and I'm okay if they give you something new.
the Robocop re-make... Man, why?
Last edited by a moderator:
Riceball
Master Member
That pretty much sums up the myriad of remakes these days, studios see them as a safe investment. Why risk a lot of money on an original story or even an adaptation of a book when you can just make a reboot or remake of a popular movie from decades past? It's probably cheaper to hire a writer to write a reboot or remake of an existing IP (that they already own) than it is to pay a writer for their original script or to buy the rights to adapt a book, it also doesn't help that past reboots/remakes have done well and the slump at the theaters only further encourages studios to go with the "safe bet' probably not realizing that it's likely that all of these reboots and remakes have contributed to the slump in ticket sales.
Bear
Sr Member
I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but there is one thing that's been really p***ing me off lately.
In pretty much every film, it's always the main characters who make breakthroughs/save the day/ solve the clues, etc. Now I understand the the main characters are the heroes and are supposed to be the saviors, but every single time?
Police and military movies are particularly bad for this.
Police Movies: You have the lone cop or partners who: do all the work, collect all the evidence/ do all the searching/ all the questioning/ all the chasing/ all the arresting, and finally receiving all the accolades. Even if they show that there are other officers working on the same case, they tend to ignore them right along with back-up officers, crime scene techs, forensics techs, and a whole host of other people.
Now I know that they are the stars of the show, but COME ON PEOPLE!!!, try to spare some thanks for everyone else.
Military Movies: The lone hero or small group, they may be misfits or top line soldiers, either way they seem to get it done without any help.
Then you have the military cliches:Rear Echelon are all greedy thieves and lazy, the officers morons or primadonnas, air/artillery support is never available when needed, new guys are always harassed/bullied and treated almost like subhumans, the rescue always arrives just after the final battle, and my favorite- anyone who is not military and a part of the unit is totally worthless.
Okay, rant is over.
Now I'm just waiting to get raked over the coals for this.
In pretty much every film, it's always the main characters who make breakthroughs/save the day/ solve the clues, etc. Now I understand the the main characters are the heroes and are supposed to be the saviors, but every single time?
Police and military movies are particularly bad for this.
Police Movies: You have the lone cop or partners who: do all the work, collect all the evidence/ do all the searching/ all the questioning/ all the chasing/ all the arresting, and finally receiving all the accolades. Even if they show that there are other officers working on the same case, they tend to ignore them right along with back-up officers, crime scene techs, forensics techs, and a whole host of other people.
Now I know that they are the stars of the show, but COME ON PEOPLE!!!, try to spare some thanks for everyone else.
Military Movies: The lone hero or small group, they may be misfits or top line soldiers, either way they seem to get it done without any help.
Then you have the military cliches:Rear Echelon are all greedy thieves and lazy, the officers morons or primadonnas, air/artillery support is never available when needed, new guys are always harassed/bullied and treated almost like subhumans, the rescue always arrives just after the final battle, and my favorite- anyone who is not military and a part of the unit is totally worthless.
Okay, rant is over.
Now I'm just waiting to get raked over the coals for this.
SeattleMaddog
Active Member
There is a comment in the first episode of Enterprise about the lack of seat restraints, I think it is Capt Archer but I do not have the DVD to check.
Last edited:
BlackKnight247
Well-Known Member
It's happened to me before
BlackKnight247
Well-Known Member
If doctor who had a comic series and you got the last one and someone else wanted it, I think you'll have an enemy, this is kinda What happened to me
MFP 2020
Sr Member
That would be awesome!
p51
Sr Member
- It really seems like this from the combat arms perspective. I ran a Ordnance company in the Army, and those guys treated us like second class citizens. They blamed us when anything wrong wrong and never gave props when we pulled off the impossible (which happened often).
- Well, having been an officer, I see why people think this. I saw it myself all the time, especially at the Major level. I was never a ladder-climber type. Pilots and SOCOM officers were always the worst, I worked with plenty of them.
- Ask any combat vet. That's a real common gripe, mertied or not.
- Just curious, have you ever served in the military? That happens all the time, regardless of rank.
- When you're in a unit, any unit, you feel like you can trust your own and you usually view people in other units with a skeptical eye. reservists really get a lot of this from the active duty folks...
Examples?
More often I'm used to seeing the professionals (cops and military) depicted as reactionary, incompetent and unnecessarily hostile towards a foreign entity (space aliens (E.T.), some sentient animal (dolphins, killer whales, tigers, Horta, Na'vi...) , foreign immigrants, ethnic groups etc...) while the lone "free-spirit" character is the only level-headed one. IRL the opposite is typically the case.
Riceball
Master Member
Agree with all above, there's a lot that goes on in the military that you don't know happens unless you're in or have been in the military. To add my $.02 to this:
1. In general, people in the combat arms, particularly grunts, tend to look down at rear echelon troops, even those within their own units. It's largely because the combat arms have it the worst in the field and esp. in times of warm and they get resentful when they see rear echelon troops (or POGs in their words) living it up. What they don't see is that many so-called POGs have their own share of hardships and it isn't just all fun and games for them.
2. In regards to this, there is an old jokes in the Marine Corps about 2nd Lts. What's the difference between a 2nd Lt. and a Lance Corporal? A Lance Corporal has been promoted at least once. The joke being that a 20 something year old 2nd Lt. knows about as much as an 18 - 19 year old Lance Corporal.
3. Now a days that's almost certainly due to very restrictive Rules of Engagement (ROE) that limit the use of air support and artillery due to fear of inflicting civilian casualties. As a result, officers in charge of approving or denying these requests sitting miles away from the action in some Super FOB are often denying these requests for fear of accidentally violating the ROE and thus endangering their careers.
4. In times of war it's a survival mechanism, because the old timers don't want to spend the emotional and mental energy to get to know someone who, in their minds, will probably just end up being killed before long, If they somehow manage to survive their next several engagements then maybe they'll be worth getting to know. It sounds harsh but it's very practical, you can't miss someone you never knew.
Similar threads
