movies you like that everyone else hates

crabra comander said:
Do people really not like Condorman? I watched that dozens of times as a kid. The flaming alcohol bit was very memorable to me.
Click to expand...

I love Condorman. I've got it and I still watch it from time to time. Granted, it will never be considered great cinema but it's fun regardless.

- - - Updated - - -

Peek73 said:
The Last Starfighter!! Love that movie, my wife and kids think I'm a big dork.
Click to expand...

Nobody hates Last Starfighter. That's one of my favorite movies.

- - - Updated - - -

ponchopanda said:
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavera, yep definatly Lost Skeleton

OH and Mr. Magoo.
Click to expand...

The sequel to Lost Skeleton was decent, although certainly not as good as the original.

I sleep now.
 
Some older titles worth mentioning :

- Def-Con 4
- The Adventures of Ford Fairlane (Dice being Dice).
- Inseminoid (Called "Horror Planet" in the US, horrid Alien ripoff, that is so bad its good).
- My Science Experiment (High school fun with time travel) Great film!
- American Ninja ("He posses great skiwlls!")
- Night of the Comet ("Daddy would have gotten us Uzis!")
- The Kentucky Fried Movie (Never laughed so hard... at the age of 13!)
- Halloween III ("Turn it of now!")
- Looker (Susan Day... Nuff said)

Enjoy

- Skyler101
 
I don't know who everyone is...but I will go with box office flops

Masters of the Universe-(live action He-Man)
Mr. Nanny (Hulk Hogan)
Thunder in paradise (Hulk Hogan)


Also saw Mallrats in theater with 3 other people I was 15 and it was like watching my friends on screen


[h=3][/h]
 
The Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen and Time Bandits. VERY few enjoyed TB but virtually everybody I know disliked / didn't get BVM.
 
Riceball said:
Maybe because of the naked dinos? It didn't bother me but I know that it did bother the hell our of a good number of dinophiles.
Click to expand...

Which has been explained. They were genetically engineered and spliced with current DNA for an appearance based on what was popular theory at the time. It wasn't until after the dinosaurs had been resurrected that they discovered that some dinos were likely feathered.

Wu even called Masrani out on this in jurassic World. "Nothing in Jurassic World is natural. We have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth!"
 
Skyler101 said:
- Night of the Comet ("Daddy would have gotten us Uzis!")
- The Kentucky Fried Movie (Never laughed so hard... at the age of 13!)
Click to expand...
Are there people who actually dislike these movies? Night of the Comet is a classic. And Kentucky Fried Movie is one of the most quotable movies of all time. I must've watched that movie at least 50 times.

Malphas said:
Battle:Los Angeles
Click to expand...
I have no idea why folks don't like this. It's a solid movie with believable characters.
 
The Mad Professor said:
Which has been explained. They were genetically engineered and spliced with current DNA for an appearance based on what was popular theory at the time. It wasn't until after the dinosaurs had been resurrected that they discovered that some dinos were likely feathered.

Wu even called Masrani out on this in jurassic World. "Nothing in Jurassic World is natural. We have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth!"
Click to expand...

I know, but the hardcore dino-philes still like to bag on the franchise over its scientific inaccuracies and lament about how it was a missed opportunity to show feathered dinosaurs in a major motion picture and all that. I guess dino nerds aren't that much different from hardcore sci-fi geeks and canon.
 
Riceball said:
I know, but the hardcore dino-philes still like to bag on the franchise over its scientific inaccuracies and lament about how it was a missed opportunity to show feathered dinosaurs in a major motion picture and all that. I guess dino nerds aren't that much different from hardcore sci-fi geeks and canon.
Click to expand...

Except that sci fi geeks actually listen to reason and accept canon.

The first definitive proof of feathered dinosaurs came about from fossils discovered in 1996. Jurassic Park was released in 1993. The original novel was published in 1990.

You're basically torn between two things here. You either risk angering the dinophiles by leaving them as lizard-like or you risk blowing your own story canon out of the water by retconning how the dinosaurs look. In this case, they went with the far more plausible explanation that the dinosaurs were resurrected based on knowledge we had at the time and that their differences from historical record are from the non-dinosaur DNA. Otherwise you'd have to explain why the dinosaurs from the first movie now have feathers.
 
The Mad Professor said:
Except that sci fi geeks actually listen to reason and accept canon.

The first definitive proof of feathered dinosaurs came about from fossils discovered in 1996. Jurassic Park was released in 1993. The original novel was published in 1990.

You're basically torn between two things here. You either risk angering the dinophiles by leaving them as lizard-like or you risk blowing your own story canon out of the water by retconning how the dinosaurs look. In this case, they went with the far more plausible explanation that the dinosaurs were resurrected based on knowledge we had at the time and that their differences from historical record are from the non-dinosaur DNA. Otherwise you'd have to explain why the dinosaurs from the first movie now have feathers.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but try telling that to do the dinophiles. All they can think about is feathered dinos and at least the raptors should have been feathered, excuses, reason, and plot be damned.
 
Meh, I was a paleontology student in the late 90's. I love JP 1 & 4. The first movie led me down that education path, even though I didn't follow it through to a career.

Personally, I thought it was a nice touch for them to admit that these dinosaurs were designed to be what people expected - not what was accurate. It folds in the old Frog DNA line from the first, the size of the raptors, the lack of feathers & differences from movie to movie. It even lets me accept the Dilophosaurus.

If any matter of accuracy still bothers me, it's the ability of the pteranodons to lift adults with their feet and carry them off. That's such a classic movie trope - and I know that's what they were echoing, but it's completely impossible due to weight & anatomy.

Unless they were genetically engineered to be able to do that, because it was a movie trope...
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
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.

Similar threads

Sluis Van Shipyards
Movies that you stopped watching because of inaccuracies
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
3,025
joberg
joberg
drusselmeyer
Endings You Saw Coming But Were a Surprise to Almost Everyone Else
Replies
7
Views
499
blewis17
blewis17
Jamesfett
Entertainment things everyone else is wrong about, and you are right about.
9 10 11
Replies
202
Views
9,462
Psab keel
Psab keel
Egon Spengler
Would you be for or against a Ghostbusters 2 Special Edition? If for, what you would like to see done?
Replies
13
Views
541
JediMichael
JediMichael
OzReturner
Alternate Versions of Movies for TV that You Remember
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
6,353
blewis17
blewis17
Back
Top