Things that piss you off...in movies!
- Thread starter OutcastBOS
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Related: the armed forces are completely useless against the aliens/zombies/monsters. If a rag-tag group of civilians with no special training and several severe emotional problems can survive a zombie attack, then you'd think a mechanized infantry platoon with Bladley IFVs would at least stand a chance. They don't even need to shoot the zombies, just drive over them from the safety of their armored vehicle.BrotherSurplice said:
Pointless characters
Focusing on characters non-essential to the plot (I'M LOOKING AT YOU TRANSFORMERS MOVIES!)
Small children
CI disease (Child Immunity)
Characters being stupid because the plot demands it
Not sticking to the source material (I can allow SOME flexibility, but it doubly pisses me off when they can't get the basic premise right)
Offscreen character deaths (within movies or between them)
Pointless romance subplots
3D Slowdown (OOOH! LOOK AT THE THING, IT'S MOVING SLOWLY TOWARDS YOU, CAN YOU SEE IT? OOOOH! THIS MOVIE IS IN 3D!)
People being less injured than they should be (I just smashed my face against the brick wall, but it's ok! It just hurts a bit!)
Overpowered characters
Unnecessary sequels
Villains that don't pull the trigger (JUST FUCKING SHOOT THE BASTARD! Post mortem speeches can still be cool!)
Mobile phones constantly losing their signal
Convieniently finding the one plot macguffin that can solve everything
Musicals
So yeah, almost every movie pisses me off in some way
Focusing on characters non-essential to the plot (I'M LOOKING AT YOU TRANSFORMERS MOVIES!)
Small children
CI disease (Child Immunity)
Characters being stupid because the plot demands it
Not sticking to the source material (I can allow SOME flexibility, but it doubly pisses me off when they can't get the basic premise right)
Offscreen character deaths (within movies or between them)
Pointless romance subplots
3D Slowdown (OOOH! LOOK AT THE THING, IT'S MOVING SLOWLY TOWARDS YOU, CAN YOU SEE IT? OOOOH! THIS MOVIE IS IN 3D!)
People being less injured than they should be (I just smashed my face against the brick wall, but it's ok! It just hurts a bit!)
Overpowered characters
Unnecessary sequels
Villains that don't pull the trigger (JUST FUCKING SHOOT THE BASTARD! Post mortem speeches can still be cool!)
Mobile phones constantly losing their signal
Convieniently finding the one plot macguffin that can solve everything
Musicals
So yeah, almost every movie pisses me off in some way
Uhm, I have glasses, and I can't see very well without them...PureChaos said:
Some people have them to correct minor problems, but not everyone, and that wouldn't be dramatic. "Oh no, I lost my glasses! Now I have trouble reading things that are far away!"
The obligation to make the main character fall in love with the nearest female within 5000 miles (PotC: On Stranger Tides).
Intergrating characters that only appeal to stupid fucking people (Shia Lebeouf in every movie ever).
Intergrating characters that only appeal to stupid fucking people (Shia Lebeouf in every movie ever).
Any movie based on a book (except The Lord of the Rings). Except LotR I have never seen a good movie based on a book. In the case of Harry Potter it ruind the books as well.
I Hate HP with a burning passion. Bad story, bad writeing, bad characters and all the other reasons that have been given on this website so many times. If it had just been books I think I would look back on them and think that they were ok but nothing special. I started them when I was 10 but by the prisoner of askaban I was reading them to find out what happened more than because I was enjoying them. But the fact that they are responsible for these crappy movies. That cannot be forgiven.
I belive that if they went by the books, without changing major plot or characters or story structuer that there are some great movies to be made from my 3 favorute book series (The Dresden Files, Codex Alera and the Night Angel trillogy) but I thank God (not really I am an atheist) that no one has tried because I do not think that Hollywood could do them justice.
I Hate HP with a burning passion. Bad story, bad writeing, bad characters and all the other reasons that have been given on this website so many times. If it had just been books I think I would look back on them and think that they were ok but nothing special. I started them when I was 10 but by the prisoner of askaban I was reading them to find out what happened more than because I was enjoying them. But the fact that they are responsible for these crappy movies. That cannot be forgiven.
I belive that if they went by the books, without changing major plot or characters or story structuer that there are some great movies to be made from my 3 favorute book series (The Dresden Files, Codex Alera and the Night Angel trillogy) but I thank God (not really I am an atheist) that no one has tried because I do not think that Hollywood could do them justice.
i have glasses too and, you may not be able to see very well, but i very much doubt you become practically blind to the point where you need to feel your way along a wall for guidance or stand in one place unable to move because you cant see where you're going, which seems to be the case in films.Ironic Pirate said:
I must disagree with you on this, the romance plots in several of these movies had a relevance. Either as a part of the larger plot, or as character development.Th3Ch33s3Cak3 said:
Lord of the Rings: The romance between Aragorn and Arwen has a relevance to the plot, plus it builds characters. The romance between Faramir and Eowyn is more important in Tolkien's books, but it could not have been left out. Not withiut me burning down the homes of those involved in the making of the film.
Avatar: The main characters love for Neytiri and her people is his main motivation for fighting, their mating is one of the most important events in the entire movie.
Forest Gump: The movie is about life, and love is a part of life. I don't think I have to say much more about this movie.
Braveheart: William Wallace's marriage and his wife's death is what starts his rebellion. Without this, there would be no rebellion, or they would have to come up with a even worse plot.
And this is just to mention a few.
I just hate it when the protagonist or a group of main characters are in a life-or-death situation not even close to the end of the movie. It's pretty obvious they don't die because there's still a whole chunk of the movie still left to see!
Also, my most hated line said by anyone in a movie or even video game is:
"Go on without me!"
Usually followed by:
"I'll hold them off!"
Usually that scene ends with that character only buying the rest of the cast only a few seconds of time or he/she didn't even need to stay behind in the first place.
EDIT:
Just remembered another one, if there's only one female cast member, she's usually a love interest for the main protagonist, who is usually a guy. Also that single female character will not die at all or until the very end, just because she's a woman. That's just what happens most of the time. ¬_¬
Also, my most hated line said by anyone in a movie or even video game is:
"Go on without me!"
Usually followed by:
"I'll hold them off!"
Usually that scene ends with that character only buying the rest of the cast only a few seconds of time or he/she didn't even need to stay behind in the first place.
EDIT:
Just remembered another one, if there's only one female cast member, she's usually a love interest for the main protagonist, who is usually a guy. Also that single female character will not die at all or until the very end, just because she's a woman. That's just what happens most of the time. ¬_¬
It's probably been ninja'd already, but i'm not in the mood to read another 3 pages of the thread, so i'll just say Zombieland. Watch it, love it, thank me later.Scarim Coral said:
There are a lot of them in prequels and sequels, so those get the first section:
A sequel to a story that was clearly finished. At the end of Jaws, the shark is dead, damnit. There is no longer a killer shark, that was the point of the movie. Aliens was fine; the heroine had been left in a vulnerable situation and there were a lot of unanswered questions and a definite possibility of something related happening again; At the end of Alien3, Ripley killed herself in the process of bringing down an alien queen. In a way that left no chance of survival and no recoverable DNA. There was nothing to resurrect for another film. There is only the possibility of a sequel if you have living characters, there are more adventures/horrors to be had, or at the very least there is a distinct possibility of something from the original film carrying on through a whole additional film.
A sequel that makes the previous story pointless. Back to the Alien films, because they give examples of most things that can go right and everything that can go wrong with a sequel. The second film ends with the heroine getting out with the little girl that she's been desperately defending the entire film, the emotional core of the story, Ripley's reason for fighting. But they won. They're safe, and they're going home. There's still a massive evil conspiracy and a species of incredibly dangerous monsters that she's probably going to have to deal with, but that is a matter for the next film to resolve! And then Alien3 comes along and murders the girl, without a word, in the first minute, offscreen. And dumps Ripley somewhere that she can't do anything about the overarching conspiracy-and-alien-race plot she's been gradually figuring out. What was the point?
Prequels that insist on using every single character from the "later" films. The new star wars films, for example. We know that Anakin will be trained as a Jedi, betray them, and become Darth Vader; there's no way around that, and we're here to see the how. And Obi-Wan and Yoda are almost certainly going to need to be a part of this story. Also, we're going to see the fall of the Republic and rise of the Empire. But why the **** are the droids here? The droids that play major roles in later events and have no knowledge of the history that we're about to see? There have been, contrary to some earlier posters, good prequels. In Tolkein's The Hobbit, we know that Bilbo, Gandalf, and Gollum will survive, and that Bilbo will acquire the Ring and take it to the Shire. Everything else is left open, and there's actual tension and mystery because most of the characters aren't immortal and most of the events are unknown. But then some idiot decides that they need to port everything from the original film into the prequel, despite the fact that it's been established that none of these people know each other and none of these inventions exist until later in the story.
Post-production 3D. 3D is not a very good idea to start with, because if it works you don't notice and if it doesn't work it ruins everything, but it doesn't have to suck. If you film in 2D and then edit it into a bunch of cardboard cutouts, it'll suck.
Shaky cam. It's designed to look realistic or make you feel like you're in the scene or whatever, but they clearly do not understand how the eyes of brain work. A real person running automatically stabilizes the image in their brain, so it's not quite as precise as standing and looking carefully but you can tell what's going on. A camera does not, and the viewer can't adjust because their head isn't actually moving, so all you're doing is making it impossible to see and inducing nausea in anyone attempting to watch as their brain tries to deal with mismatching signals.
Changing camera angles constantly in action scenes. If I'm watching an action scene, I'd like to be able to tell what actions are occurring, thank you very much. Every time you change the camera I need to figure out who's who, where they are, and what they're doing. And then you change it again before I get to the last step. So those multi-million dollar effects and brilliantly choreographed fight scene just turned into a bunch of faceless anonymous people with epilepsy.
Gratuitous nudity, gore, etc. I have no problems with adult content if it matches the themes of the film, fits in the story, etc. If it was blatantly tacked on to increase the rating or draw perverts, it becomes disgusting.
Stupid anachronisms. I don't have a problem with schitzo tech that fits the setting, or using modern american english in a historical/futuristic/foreign setting in order to allow viewers to understand what's going on. But if you're in a standard medieval setting and at the fancy ball you throw in a rapper and everyone starts freak dancing, you've just killed the movie.
Bullshit scientific explanations. I'm perfectly fine with a handwave on how the time machine or the hyperdrive works. I will accept a barrage of terms that sound scientific to people who don't know science. I will not accept an explanation that takes real scientific principles and terms and pretends they work in a way that has nothing to do with how they actually act. For example, the "black hole = time travel" trope that has become so common. Yes, it's been theorized that you can effectively travel forward in time by moving at speeds approaching the speed of light, because your own perception of time would be slowed by relativity. Yes, you can achieve these speeds by looping around a black hole (if you're a suicidal moron). No that does not mean that you can dive into a black hole and come out in the past; no part of that has any grounding in any actual science. Just make a damn time machine macguffin and stop pretending to understand things that you clearly don't.
Any film built entirely around one famous actor. If Jack Black, Eddie Murphy, or Will Ferryl is in something, you know from the start that it's not going to be a movie, it's going to be a shrine built to one person who isn't as funny as they think they are.
A sequel to a story that was clearly finished. At the end of Jaws, the shark is dead, damnit. There is no longer a killer shark, that was the point of the movie. Aliens was fine; the heroine had been left in a vulnerable situation and there were a lot of unanswered questions and a definite possibility of something related happening again; At the end of Alien3, Ripley killed herself in the process of bringing down an alien queen. In a way that left no chance of survival and no recoverable DNA. There was nothing to resurrect for another film. There is only the possibility of a sequel if you have living characters, there are more adventures/horrors to be had, or at the very least there is a distinct possibility of something from the original film carrying on through a whole additional film.
A sequel that makes the previous story pointless. Back to the Alien films, because they give examples of most things that can go right and everything that can go wrong with a sequel. The second film ends with the heroine getting out with the little girl that she's been desperately defending the entire film, the emotional core of the story, Ripley's reason for fighting. But they won. They're safe, and they're going home. There's still a massive evil conspiracy and a species of incredibly dangerous monsters that she's probably going to have to deal with, but that is a matter for the next film to resolve! And then Alien3 comes along and murders the girl, without a word, in the first minute, offscreen. And dumps Ripley somewhere that she can't do anything about the overarching conspiracy-and-alien-race plot she's been gradually figuring out. What was the point?
Prequels that insist on using every single character from the "later" films. The new star wars films, for example. We know that Anakin will be trained as a Jedi, betray them, and become Darth Vader; there's no way around that, and we're here to see the how. And Obi-Wan and Yoda are almost certainly going to need to be a part of this story. Also, we're going to see the fall of the Republic and rise of the Empire. But why the **** are the droids here? The droids that play major roles in later events and have no knowledge of the history that we're about to see? There have been, contrary to some earlier posters, good prequels. In Tolkein's The Hobbit, we know that Bilbo, Gandalf, and Gollum will survive, and that Bilbo will acquire the Ring and take it to the Shire. Everything else is left open, and there's actual tension and mystery because most of the characters aren't immortal and most of the events are unknown. But then some idiot decides that they need to port everything from the original film into the prequel, despite the fact that it's been established that none of these people know each other and none of these inventions exist until later in the story.
Post-production 3D. 3D is not a very good idea to start with, because if it works you don't notice and if it doesn't work it ruins everything, but it doesn't have to suck. If you film in 2D and then edit it into a bunch of cardboard cutouts, it'll suck.
Shaky cam. It's designed to look realistic or make you feel like you're in the scene or whatever, but they clearly do not understand how the eyes of brain work. A real person running automatically stabilizes the image in their brain, so it's not quite as precise as standing and looking carefully but you can tell what's going on. A camera does not, and the viewer can't adjust because their head isn't actually moving, so all you're doing is making it impossible to see and inducing nausea in anyone attempting to watch as their brain tries to deal with mismatching signals.
Changing camera angles constantly in action scenes. If I'm watching an action scene, I'd like to be able to tell what actions are occurring, thank you very much. Every time you change the camera I need to figure out who's who, where they are, and what they're doing. And then you change it again before I get to the last step. So those multi-million dollar effects and brilliantly choreographed fight scene just turned into a bunch of faceless anonymous people with epilepsy.
Gratuitous nudity, gore, etc. I have no problems with adult content if it matches the themes of the film, fits in the story, etc. If it was blatantly tacked on to increase the rating or draw perverts, it becomes disgusting.
Stupid anachronisms. I don't have a problem with schitzo tech that fits the setting, or using modern american english in a historical/futuristic/foreign setting in order to allow viewers to understand what's going on. But if you're in a standard medieval setting and at the fancy ball you throw in a rapper and everyone starts freak dancing, you've just killed the movie.
Bullshit scientific explanations. I'm perfectly fine with a handwave on how the time machine or the hyperdrive works. I will accept a barrage of terms that sound scientific to people who don't know science. I will not accept an explanation that takes real scientific principles and terms and pretends they work in a way that has nothing to do with how they actually act. For example, the "black hole = time travel" trope that has become so common. Yes, it's been theorized that you can effectively travel forward in time by moving at speeds approaching the speed of light, because your own perception of time would be slowed by relativity. Yes, you can achieve these speeds by looping around a black hole (if you're a suicidal moron). No that does not mean that you can dive into a black hole and come out in the past; no part of that has any grounding in any actual science. Just make a damn time machine macguffin and stop pretending to understand things that you clearly don't.
Any film built entirely around one famous actor. If Jack Black, Eddie Murphy, or Will Ferryl is in something, you know from the start that it's not going to be a movie, it's going to be a shrine built to one person who isn't as funny as they think they are.
Movie remakes. If a movie can only make money because of the brand name then it shouldn't exist. If the remake is anything passable, you can just change the name and it should work anyway. take Black Swan. It's pretty much a live action remake of this one anime that I can't name right now, but it holds up as a stand alone movie. It didn't need "remake" stamped across it.
I hope the guys making Akira read this, because it looks like they've changed it enough that calling it Akira will make it bomb harder than it will anyway.
I hope the guys making Akira read this, because it looks like they've changed it enough that calling it Akira will make it bomb harder than it will anyway.
Mostly that in a movie, the concept of a movie doesn't exist.
I'd love to see a horror movie where they realize they're in a horror movie like scenario and try use that to their advantage. It would be more interesting than "hey lets split up", which always results in only the white girl being left alive.
That's another one, it's almost always only the white chick who survives the ordeal.
Excessive camera jumping, because it makes my eyes work more than they need to for something I'm supposed to be relaxing through.
I'd love to see a horror movie where they realize they're in a horror movie like scenario and try use that to their advantage. It would be more interesting than "hey lets split up", which always results in only the white girl being left alive.
That's another one, it's almost always only the white chick who survives the ordeal.
Excessive camera jumping, because it makes my eyes work more than they need to for something I'm supposed to be relaxing through.
Well they're supposed to be French people speaking in french to each other so, why would they have french accents?Idlemessiah said:
