Things you're tired of seeing in movies

I know it's been said already, but re-booting franchises every few years.
A new Fantastic 4 series? Count me out. Re-booting a movie I saw as a kid (I'm in my 40s now) is tough enough, but a movie I only saw new in the theaters a few years ago?
People say Hollywood permanently ran out of ideas they're willing to invest in not long ago. This only proves there seems to be merit to that theory.
 
I know it's been said already, but re-booting franchises every few years.
A new Fantastic 4 series? Count me out. Re-booting a movie I saw as a kid (I'm in my 40s now) is tough enough, but a movie I only saw new in the theaters a few years ago?
People say Hollywood permanently ran out of ideas they're willing to invest in not long ago. This only proves there seems to be merit to that theory.

I know right? I mean like comon... didn't we just have the Silver Surfer on the screen not too long ago? Now they want to reboot it? Gimme me a break! I hope it bombs in the box office!
 
Glad someone bumped this as was too lazy to go looking for it.

People shaving that are obviously already clean shaven.

Especially when they leave bits of shaving cream behind, and when they wipe it off, the stubble is gone under those bits too.
 
People shaving that are obviously already clean shaven.

Especially when they leave bits of shaving cream behind, and when they wipe it off, the stubble is gone under those bits too.
Funny, I was watching, "Force Ten from Navarone" just last night and saw Harrison Ford d exactly this and I wondered about it, too.
 
I know it's been said already, but re-booting franchises every few years.
A new Fantastic 4 series? Count me out. Re-booting a movie I saw as a kid (I'm in my 40s now) is tough enough, but a movie I only saw new in the theaters a few years ago?
People say Hollywood permanently ran out of ideas they're willing to invest in not long ago. This only proves there seems to be merit to that theory.

the original FF movie had me laughing my butt off , and it wasnt that bad ( neither was mario bros from a elementry school me point of view)
NEUTERED COP ( robocop reboot) which had NONE , i repeat NONE of the humor of the classic ,not even satire for that matter
AND
they pulled off a IRON MAN
(where if someone wanted to , all they had to do was kill MS MURPHY and THE KID,since robocops identity is ok for the public to know because reasons SMFH)


2) the over all dependence on CGI , any punk with a computer can do cgi ( just look at the disaster that is called BAY-TURTLES) its coming to a point that we suffered our first major casualty with Rick Baker closing shop .and for all of you who argue that CGI is the future , you forget where that skill came from and HOW IT WAS DEVELOPED :facepalm
and yes i am big enough of a punk to say that it takes dedication and love of your profession to put the TIME AND EFFORT into making a prop/ performance piece.


article title :Legendary Special-Effects Artist Rick Baker on How CGI Killed His Industry

legendary-rick-bakers-retirement-auction-marks-the-end-of-the-non-cgi-era-888-body-image-1433799.jpg



3. the fact that EVERY THING and i mean everything must be dumbed down for the teenybobber crowd, even a blood and guts movie like DRACULA UNTOLD needed to have his teeth pulled with as little violence as possible , and as little gore as possible ( a dracula movie with a PG 13 rating , really ??) had that movie EVEN tried to live up to gary oldmans standard it could have been good , but no we ended up with a vampire film slightly more dull than TWILIGHT.
 
LAKE PLACID VS ANACONDA, 3 HEADED SHARK ( or any scifi chanell movie )

There's a vast difference between bad CG and good CG and I'm tired of all of this CG bashing since a lot of the times there's CG (not necessarily 3D models) used in a movie where no one has any idea there was CG. You really can't use those crappy SyFy Originals as examples to say that all CG is bad, they're just low budget films with everything done on the cheap and would have been just as bad if they were done back before the days of modern CG, if at all. For every low budget crapfest with low budget effects you have shows like Firefly, & BSG whose CG still holds up pretty well to this day and you have films like Ant Man, & Guardian's of the Galaxy that help showcase what can be done with CG.
 
I took a course in theater design when I was in college, just for the heck of it, and they taught that no matter how bad a background you have on stage, the audience will simply ignore how bad it looks and fill in the 'reality' that's supposed to be behind your actors. I think that some CGI, even the good stuff, is like that. Take the first Jurassic Park movie for example, you can tell which is the full-sized Stan Winston dinosaur and which is CGI. And that was really well-done CGI work.
 
There's a vast difference between bad CG and good CG and I'm tired of all of this CG bashing since a lot of the times there's CG (not necessarily 3D models) used in a movie where no one has any idea there was CG. You really can't use those crappy SyFy Originals as examples to say that all CG is bad, they're just low budget films with everything done on the cheap and would have been just as bad if they were done back before the days of modern CG, if at all. For every low budget crapfest with low budget effects you have shows like Firefly, & BSG whose CG still holds up pretty well to this day and you have films like Ant Man, & Guardian's of the Galaxy that help showcase what can be done with CG.

I agree... not all CGI is bad. Look at all the CGI in Forest Gump or even Titanic! CGI is best when it's NOT focused on. When its used to enhance the story, not drive it. CGI should be used in the background and shouldn't be used to create the main focus of the movie it's used in. For example. I didn't realize that Iron Man's legs in just about every scene with RDJ were all CGI. And it took me awhile to realize that the young Jeff Bridges was actually all CGI in Tron Legacy. The battle sequences in Lord of the Rings is a prime example of how CGI SHOULD be done. That is what I'm talking about... You shouldn't know CGI was used... otherwise it ruins the illusion. On the other hand there are just so many movies that use CGI in such bad ways (not including the bad Syfy B movies that they flood the market with on the cheap). SW: Episode 1 was a prime example... Jar Jar Binks was just a really bad idea. Sure they could create a complete CGI character, but the technology just hasn't reached the point where it's completely passable as a real being yet. CGI has come leaps and bounds over the years... and I'm all for it! Look at all the Pixar movies and one movie that comes to mind that almost made me a believer was Beowolf! I was truly impressed by that movie and even more impressed that it was ALL CGI. I'd say the first maybe 15-20 minutes, you really didn't know! And that was impressive. I think the problem I see most is that they are still working on the formulas for the basics and have been getting a lot better at them. Like Water, Fire, and Air. But they are still missing a certain aspect of realism, perhaps the randomization routines are still too formulaic and even thou they are getting better you can still spot them because of it. The face especially is the toughest to conquer in the CGI areas. Sure you can render a perfectly passable human face, but animating it is another thing. We are so tuned into the smallest facial expressions that we have yet to be able to simulate those expressions accurately and still be passable. I think it's because when rendering you have to do it a frame at a time... they use a keyframe between frames and tell the computer to render all the frames between two keys. The computer still can't get those micro movements properly automatically. I believe each frame should be done manually in order to work properly. But then again, even if they were to laser capture a sequence of facial expressions down to the millimeter it would still look too digital and would loose something in the translation. I dunno. I guess what I'm saying is this... Not all CGI is bad. But there's a lot more BAD CGI out there then there is GOOD CGI and it's a shame... but I'm sure that as time goes on it will get better and they will be able to reproduce everything more accurately.
 
I took a course in theater design when I was in college, just for the heck of it, and they taught that no matter how bad a background you have on stage, the audience will simply ignore how bad it looks and fill in the 'reality' that's supposed to be behind your actors. I think that some CGI, even the good stuff, is like that. Take the first Jurassic Park movie for example, you can tell which is the full-sized Stan Winston dinosaur and which is CGI. And that was really well-done CGI work.

But how much of that is because you know that it's CG and therefore you look for it and are (subconsciously) more critical of it because you know that it's CG. I'm willing to be that there are movies out that you've seen that have used CG where you were completely oblivious to it and didn't realize that certain scenes had CG in it until after you finished watching the movie.
 
I love Steven Segal movies! Dont ask me why because I will not answer! However, I noticed in several of his later "3 word titled movies" that many directors are using a technique of moving the camera / zooming in and out WAY too much during car chases hoping to give the viewer the feeling of speed and peril.

Sadly, it doesn't work. Therefore, I must insist all car chases reach speeds of 80-120 MPH before filming. ;)
 
Last edited:
I love Steven Segal movies! Dont ask me why because I will not answer! However, I noticed in several of his later "3 word titled movies" that many directors are using a technique of moving the camera / zooming in and out WAY too much during car chases hoping to give the viewer the feeling of speed and peril.

Sadly, it doesn't work. Therefore, I must insist all car chases reach speeds of 80-120 MPH before filming. ;)

Oh I totally agree on that one... How can these car chases be totally possible when they are actually driving at only 30-40 miles an hour. I remember seeing one movie (can't remember off the top of my head) when if you watched real close you could see people walking in the background at 3 times the speed they should be, meaning they filmed the chase at a slow speed and sped up the camera! Totally turned the whole movie into a joke for me!
 
disaster is eminent. one scientist knows whats happening, one of his relatives is a cop and all of his three kids are in dangerzone.

sums up 98% of disaster movies. comon, find something new in hollywood!
 
disaster is eminent. one scientist knows whats happening, one of his relatives is a cop and all of his three kids are in dangerzone.

sums up 98% of disaster movies. comon, find something new in hollywood!

They did change this up in San Andreas. There wasn't just one scientist that knew what was going to happen but a small team and none of them were related to a cop. The hero of the movie is actually an LAFD helo pilot and he only had an ex-wife and a daughter and no relation to any of the scientists.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top