Things you're tired of seeing in movies

[p51]

I had a pal who for a short time was a prison guard and he said one of things that most first-time prisoners think is that they're gonna bust out. he ones who'd been there for a while always knew better.
Yeah, I agree that is pretty stupid. That new Stalone/Ahnold movie was downright hysterical, makes it look like anyone could get out of any prison if they just paid a lot of attention to what was going on around them.

 

[Tremas]

Not really in movies per se....but it just flat out annoys me, that American studios don't really consider a film to be a success, unless it makes a bajillion dollars in America alone. JOHN CARTER barely made its American investment back, but still did well overseas, and yet it was considered a money-loser by American standards.

 

[The Terminator]

Not really in movies per se....but it just flat out annoys me, that American studios don't really consider a film to be a success, unless it makes a bajillion dollars in America alone. JOHN CARTER barely made its American investment back, but still did well overseas, and yet it was considered a money-loser by American standards.

Hear hear!

 

[Stronglikebear]

The obsession with opening weekends and American audiences is really hurting the business at the moment.

What most studios don't notice or don't count on is that worldwide audiences tend to love our blockbusters. Whatever a big blockbuster grosses in America, you can expect it to do as well or better in Asia. That's what saved Pacific Rim when it had a less-than-stellar American opening, and it's the only reason we're hearing talk of a sequel now (aside from Del Toro's endless enthusiasm).

Most blockbusters, with their gigantic ad campaigns and merchandising deals, need to make back double their budget before being considered successful. John Carter made much, much less than that (even though it recouped its budget) and so it was a failure. It's a ridiculous standard.

 

[blewis17]

The advertising is usually 50% on top of production costs. So, a $200 million movie, may have another $100 million on top of that in advertising, and therefore need to beat $300 million before it breaks even. And there's always the funny accounting per studio department, where


Remember when a movie wouldn't be on VHS or Beta until a year or two AFTER it's theatrical run?
Now, every thing is geared toward the DVD , blu ray, and digital release only months later.

 

[p51]

Remember when a movie wouldn't be on VHS or Beta until a year or two AFTER it's theatrical run?
Now, every thing is geared toward the DVD , blu ray, and digital release only months later.

Also remember when people couldn't afford the VHS tapes? That was why move rental places were so popular for a while, because spending over 50 bucks for a VHS tape wasn't that unusual, so you didn't see them in mainstream stores for a while. I remember when the VHS for 'Top Gun' came out, it was one of the first affordable popular movies to be released on VHS. It was a huge thing at the time, and LOTS of VHS tapes of that movie were sold, I bought my copy the day it came out.

 

[Probe Droid]

^ When Raiders debuted on VHS it was $26, so affordable by everyone. It sold a boatload of copies. On the other side, I think The Hunt for Red October was $300.

 

[Solo4114]

I've got two.

1. I'm tired of character death being used as a cheap plot device on television and in films. While I don't watch the show, I read an article today about last night's episode of The Good Wife, wherein they apparently killed some high profile character. So as not to spoil it for anyone, I won't go into further detail, but the article made a pretty good point about how pretty much EVERY show does this now and it is not at all meaningful anymore. I think this extends to film as well, where some "surprise" death comes out of nowhere just to hit a beat or show that "we're serious" or whathaveyou. In some cases, it fits with the story, and that's fine. But when it's used as a crutch or as a substitute for doing the harder work of telling a meaningful story about life WITHOUT resorting to death as a prop, that's when I have a problem with it.

2. Related to #1, the overreliance on "dark" as a theme. It's fine to have gritty, grim films. In many cases, that's appropriate. But particularly for certain subject matter, it's really inappropriate and out of place. What's more, it's fast becoming generic (along with muted color palettes) in comic book films, even when the subject matter doesn't call for it. I think the "dark" thing is actually missing the point, though, and is overextrapolating from the success of the Nolan bat-films. I think what audiences appreciated about those films was (1) that the films took their audiences seriously and treated them as intelligent humans rather than idiot children, and (2) that the world felt...hmm...grounded. Somewhat realistic (yes, in spite of some of the more glaring unrealistic aspects).

I think this is one of the things that, by contrast, Man of Steel so screwed up (along with really bad pacing). It tried to be too serious and grim with material that is, traditionally, not as grim as all that. I still think that you can do a Superman movie that takes its audience seriously rather than condescends to them, but still has an upbeat, positive, view of the world, and is visually bright and colorful instead of generically drab.

 

[p51]

Yeah, using a character's death to further things along is SO played out.
The only time I was ever surprised by it was when Adric on the original Dr Who bought it. It wasn't a plot point at all and all it caused was grief, which is how it'd play out in real life. I respected the writers in that one case...

 

[AJ2013]

Well, I do not really have a reason to not agree with you for some movies. However, I can honestly say one movie which should have really used and could have used the slow motion fight impact scenes at some parts of the movie was the 'Man of Steel'. It just had too man fast moving fight scenes. A mix of fast and slow would had been great for certain parts. Just an opinion lol!

 

[Jeyl]

However, I can honestly say one movie which should have really used and could have used the slow motion fight impact scenes at some parts of the movie was the 'Man of Steel'.

It would have been nice, but that would have only gotten in the way of the shaky/zoomy camera work.

 

[NormanF]

Speaking of unrealistic fights, I found this recently:
Die Hard

Die Hard 2-5

 

[p51]

Those die hard movies are hilarious, but whatever 'doctor' they talked with had no idea of normal injures sustained in an aircraft ejection seat, you almost always have back problems after punching out of a bird like that.

 

[jayutmb]

Crap with political agenda over tones.... ( remake of when earth stood still..ect ) granted the first one had its own, but remaking it and adding tree people agenda in place of real plot is what pisses me off a lot with flix now


Who is John Galt...

 

[Solo4114]

Yeah, using a character's death to further things along is SO played out.
The only time I was ever surprised by it was when Adric on the original Dr Who bought it. It wasn't a plot point at all and all it caused was grief, which is how it'd play out in real life. I respected the writers in that one case...

I respected it because ADRIC WAS ANNOYING. Although, really, that was because nobody knew how to write him (a problem which would later plague the 6th Doctor).

Don't get me wrong. Death can be made meaningful in such situations. Joss Whedon, I think, has done some good deaths, like Buffy's mom or Buffy herself. But other times it's just cheap....like when Joss Whedon killed Wash abruptly, just to "scare" the audience.

I've just come to think that writers have this notion that their stories have to end with poignant misery or at least tinged by sadness for it to seem "real," but mostly I think it's because nobody knows how to write convincingly real happiness. Seriously. It's either "happily ever after" or...momentary happiness before a senseless death. I'm just tired of it. I wish writers would stretch themselves to try to show people being realistically happy.

Crap with political agenda over tones.... ( remake of when earth stood still..ect ) granted the first one had its own, but remaking it and adding tree people agenda in place of real plot is what pisses me off a lot with flix now

I think it's more a problem of remakes trying to "update" their politics. Like, the remake of Red Dawn featuring the (Chinese) North Koreans. Most of the time, the update doesn't work that well.

 

[DoubleD]

I wish they'd stop spraying down streets to make them look like it just rained before filming. I get that a wet road reflects lights and makes the scene look more dynamic, but I'm over it. In X-Men First Class they even sprayed the inside of the parking garage! It's just one of those things that gets under your skin since it sands out to me now that it's a pet peeve of mine.

It also bugs me when it's obviously a sunny day, but it's raining cats and dogs in the scene.

 

[dascoyne]

Crap with political agenda over tones.... ( remake of when earth stood still..ect ) granted the first one had its own, but remaking it and adding tree people agenda in place of real plot is what pisses me off a lot with flix now


Who is John Galt...

How about Elysium which where the political agenda was about as subtle as clown shoes.

 

[jayutmb]

Yea I really wanted to like Elysium, but with the "In you face" political subtext I could not get into it at all... I kept thinking about 1. why cant I just get a cool movie and leave out the politics 2. WTF do they think will happen after they make the whole earth " Death free?!" fast forward 10 years everyone is overcrowded and begging for people to die?

 

[dascoyne]

Yea I really wanted to like Elysium, but with the "In you face" political subtext I could not get into it at all... I kept thinking about 1. why cant I just get a cool movie and leave out the politics 2. WTF do they think will happen after they make the whole earth " Death free?!" fast forward 10 years everyone is overcrowded and begging for people to die?

I'm not even sure if it qualifies as subtext as obscenely overt as it was.

Hispanic immigrants of the future in junky improvised spacecraft trying to get to a land of prosperity in order to get access to advanced free healthcare?

*grumble*

I'm glad I didn't sit in a theater for that.

 

[Riceball]

Something that's bothered me for a while now are lights in helmets, it's become a staple of sci-fi that if you have a fully enclosed space suit or a hazmat suit your helmet has to have lights in it. I can understand the need to light the face of the actors but show me an actual space suit or even a hazmat suit in real life that actually has little lights in them plus I've seen enough real life footage of astronauts in real space suits and I can see their faces in their helmets just fine without the use of interior helmet lights.

To a lesser degree and on a related note are scenes of people in a car at night and you can tell that they're very obviously being lit by a light hidden somewhere low in the car. I realize that at night you'd probably be hard pressed to see the actor's faces inside the car without some sort of extra lighting but do they need to be so obvious about it? I'm sure they could easily figure out a way to light them so that it's so obvious that you're shining a light in their faces. Worse comes to worse, just put a smaller light that only makes them a little more visible and brighten a bit more in post.