The Campaign Builder's Guild

The Archives => The Dragon's Den (Archived) => Topic started by: SDragon on May 11, 2007, 01:50:29 PM

Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: SDragon on May 11, 2007, 01:50:29 PM
This is a thread for member to rant and rave about shoddy movies that, by all rights, should have been amazing.

It's been awhile since I saw the movie, and since it was only on TV, I never found out the name, but there's this one movie about 'Nam. Specifically, citizen chopper units over the Ho Chi Min Trail. Mel Gibson and Robert Downey JR. Sounds great, right? It sucked. The entire movie seemed to be, "how many climatic scenes can we jam into one script?".

Another movie I watched more Recently was Boondock Saints. Willem Dafoe is an FBI agent on the trail of a small band of vigilantes that style themselves after Angels of Justice. Sounds cool so far, but why FBI? There was a total of about 3 minutes where Dafoe was gay, and the rest of the two hours completely ignored this part of his character. Why?! What about the Brothers' fluency in so many languages if they only used three, and only needed to use two ("english" and "other")? Don't get me started on the jingling crucifixes...


Anybody else got any gripes about shoddy productions of otherwise excellent flicks? I'd loke to hear 'em!
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: MittenNinja on May 11, 2007, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: CornThere was a total of about 3 minutes where Dafoe was gay
To be fair he was very gay throughout the entire film. When he lost it he went to a gay bar, was caught in bed with another guy when he was called about a crime scene, and then there's the whole scene at the end of the movie where he's pretending to be a prostitute. One of my friends said "Wait, is he gay?" within seconds of dafoe coming on screen. It wouldn't have been the same character if he wasn't.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: SDragon on May 11, 2007, 02:38:45 PM
Quote from: MittenNinja
Quote from: CornThere was a total of about 3 minutes where Dafoe was gay
To be fair he was very gay throughout the entire film. When he lost it he went to a gay bar, was caught in bed with another guy when he was called about a crime scene, and then there's the whole scene at the end of the movie where he's pretending to be a prostitute. One of my friends said "Wait, is he gay?" within seconds of dafoe coming on screen. It wouldn't have been the same character if he wasn't.

I forgot about the barscene (was it really a gay bar? I thought just the bartender was gay), but all of that could've easily been cut out. The scene with him in bed was the three minutes I was refering to.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: MittenNinja on May 11, 2007, 03:01:26 PM
Quote from: CornI forgot about the barscene (was it really a gay bar? I thought just the bartender was gay), but all of that could've easily been cut out. The scene with him in bed was the three minutes I was refering to.

Still what about the scene towards the end at Papa Joe's where he brings the mobster upstairs to the bathroom?
And if we cut out that scene we wouldn't know why he was stumbling into the church making a drunken confession to the priest and rocko.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Stargate525 on May 11, 2007, 03:05:23 PM
Every. Harry. Potter. Movie.

It's hard for me to find a movie that I can't at least not hate based on its own merits (I even deal with 'based on book' movies by treating them as simply movies), but I have with the Harry potter movies. The actors are horrible almost across the board, they can't be bothered to follow Rowling's less-than-intricate plotlines, and alter the locations and event almost on a whim. The movies don't tell a story, its to see how much you can stroke a character's ego before he breaks into emotion (apparently quite a bit; Radcliffe still hasn't managed it in 4 movies).
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: brainface on May 11, 2007, 03:06:48 PM
QuoteAnother movie I watched more Recently was Boondock Saints.
I forgot about the barscene (was it really a gay bar? I thought just the bartender was gay)[/quote]not caring[/i]. I found it slow, stock, unconvincing, and above all boring. I hate to say that about a movie involving the impact of war on children, but it's unfortunately true.

Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ra-Tiel on May 11, 2007, 03:52:12 PM
Three words: Dungeons. And. Dragons.

When I heard that a D&D movie was in the make I was incredibly excited to watch it. After I finally watched it, my only thought was: "And this was what I have wasted 2 hours of my life I won't get back on?". I guess I don't need to tell you how bad the movie was across how many boards.

:dots:
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Higgs Boson on May 11, 2007, 08:24:14 PM
I completely agree with Ra-Tiel, and another one.....Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World....it could have easily been great, but somehow ther were only a complete 2 minutes (at the most) of funny.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Hibou on May 11, 2007, 09:05:47 PM
Batman and Robin - although I think Arnold was a good pick for Freeze (he would have been awesome had he had some 90's cartoon-esque goggles and had the script not been so damned childish), George Cluney as Batman and the constant corny lines are a little too much.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Jharviss on May 11, 2007, 10:26:04 PM
Well, I've so far disagreed with everyone, save Ra-Tiel and the D&D movies.  They were atrocious.

Boondock Saints was brilliant.  I own not one, but two copies of the movie (and, unfortunately, owning two copies doesn't help me much).  Grave of the Fireflies is also brilliant.  It made me sad.  Really sad.

Reign of Fire was my most despised movie.  I really did not like it.  It's the only movie I've ever left the theatre because of.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: MittenNinja on May 12, 2007, 12:19:18 AM
Worst movie ever: Battlefield Earth
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ninja D! on May 12, 2007, 12:12:03 PM
I would have had something to say here but I'm too bothered by someone calling Boondocks Saints "little known."
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Poseptune on May 12, 2007, 12:28:33 PM
Jurassic Park 2. I refuse to acknoledge that Jurassic Park 3 exsists.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ishmayl-Retired on May 12, 2007, 12:45:34 PM
Sadly enough, JP3 was a hell of a lot better than JP2... which is just a shame.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ishmayl-Retired on May 12, 2007, 12:50:02 PM
Ooooh, I know some movies that should have been better.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
X-Men 3.... (I still can't talk about this one)

Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Poseptune on May 12, 2007, 12:56:59 PM
JP2 could have been a lot better if they had stuck to the second book more, like they did with the first one. They cut a lot from the first book when they made it a movie, but it was still awesome, one of the better book to movie movies I've seen. The second strayed too far from the book. Which if they did it well wouldn't have been a bad thing, but they didn't.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: SDragon on May 12, 2007, 01:46:32 PM
Quote from: MittenNinja
Quote from: CornI forgot about the barscene (was it really a gay bar? I thought just the bartender was gay), but all of that could've easily been cut out. The scene with him in bed was the three minutes I was refering to.

Still what about the scene towards the end at Papa Joe's where he brings the mobster upstairs to the bathroom?
And if we cut out that scene we wouldn't know why he was stumbling into the church making a drunken confession to the priest and rocko.

I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean the entire scenes could've easily been cut out, but the homosexuality could've been completely removed from the character with no consequence. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality (especially in theatre-- kidding!), but this just seemed incredibly arbitary.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: MittenNinja on May 12, 2007, 01:58:42 PM
Quote from: CornI think you misunderstood. I didn't mean the entire scenes could've easily been cut out, but the homosexuality could've been completely removed from the character with no consequence. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality (especially in theatre-- kidding!), but this just seemed incredibly arbitary.
That's like saying santa claus would lose nothing from his character if he wasn't fat and jolly.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: SDragon on May 12, 2007, 02:24:16 PM
Quote from: MittenNinja
Quote from: CornI think you misunderstood. I didn't mean the entire scenes could've easily been cut out, but the homosexuality could've been completely removed from the character with no consequence. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality (especially in theatre-- kidding!), but this just seemed incredibly arbitary.
That's like saying santa claus would lose nothing from his character if he wasn't fat and jolly.

Honestly, I don't agree with this. "fat and jolly" is consistantly part of Santa's character, whereas Dafoe was only gay in a handful of scenes. Same with the brothers being fluent in multiple languages: only happened in the interview scene.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: MittenNinja on May 12, 2007, 02:34:16 PM
Quote from: CornHonestly, I don't agree with this. "fat and jolly" is consistantly part of Santa's character, whereas Dafoe was only gay in a handful of scenes. Same with the brothers being fluent in multiple languages: only happened in the interview scene.

It's not like dafoe's character isn't gay during the scenes where it's not shoved in your face. He is gay throughout the whole film and the undertones in his acting throughout the film support that.

As far as the brothers go:
There were more than one occasion where their multi-lingual abilities came into play. When the russians came to the bar they talked to the mobsters in russian and when they got the tip off the russian's pager.

My point is that just because something isn't blatantly apparent throughout a film doesn't mean it isn't important to the character. Maybe I'm just so adamant about that because I have acting experience.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: SDragon on May 12, 2007, 02:38:34 PM
Quote from: MittenNinja
Quote from: CornHonestly, I don't agree with this. "fat and jolly" is consistantly part of Santa's character, whereas Dafoe was only gay in a handful of scenes. Same with the brothers being fluent in multiple languages: only happened in the interview scene.

It's not like dafoe's character isn't gay during the scenes where it's not shoved in your face. He is gay throughout the whole film and the undertones in his acting throughout the film support that.

As far as the brothers go:
There were more than one occasion where their multi-lingual abilities came into play. When the russians came to the bar they talked to the mobsters in russian and when they got the tip off the russian's pager.

My point is that just because something isn't blatantly apparent throughout a film doesn't mean it isn't important to the character. Maybe I'm just so adamant about that because I have acting experience.


I could accept undertones, but I didn't even see those.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: MittenNinja on May 12, 2007, 02:43:04 PM
Really? I didn't think they were too hard to see.

couple examples:
- playing with the pink feathered boa in the strip club
- hands on his hips and always swaying his hips
- way more touchy feely than any of the other characters
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: SDragon on May 12, 2007, 02:48:31 PM
Quote from: MittenNinjaReally? I didn't think they were too hard to see.

couple examples:
- playing with the pink feathered boa in the strip club
- hands on his hips and always swaying his hips
- way more touchy feely than any of the other characters


Maybe it's because I'm an average moviegoer, and not an experienced actor, but I didn't notice any of those.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: brainface on May 12, 2007, 03:11:34 PM
Quote from: Ninja GuyI would have had something to say here but I'm too bothered by someone calling Boondocks Saints "little known."

Eh... wikipedia said it had a limited release and used the term "cult" at least once in the description. "Little" is a relative term, of course. And apparently everyone in this thread has seen it. (I'd never heard of the movie when we more or less stole the tape from our RA in college.)
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Jharviss on May 12, 2007, 04:35:21 PM
Dafoe's character was gay to make his character more vivid.  If had hadn't been gay, he would have been stock and boring.  Every character has to have different traits to make them more interesting.  The brothers were well educated, and that was displayed by the multi-lingual scene.  No, they never needed to speak another language, but because of that scene you now know that they are well educated.

Character development is more important than plot.  Stock characters and a good plot don't make a good movie.  Boondock Saints had very interesting characters (at least the main three--the saints and Dafoe).  My other favorite movies are typically favorites because of good characters.

The movies I hate are hated because of their stock characters.

My opinions, truly.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Stargate525 on May 12, 2007, 05:28:20 PM
Quote from: JharvissDafoe's character was gay to make his character more vivid.  If had hadn't been gay, he would have been stock and boring.
Which is a sign of bad writing. I've never seen the movie, but if you can remove one aspect from a character and instantly turn them into a cardboard cutout, there's a problem.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Wensleydale on May 12, 2007, 05:37:33 PM
X-Men 3, the last stand.

The things I hate about this movie have melded together into one big blob, so I will just state the two that annoyed me the most.

Angel: Poor Angel. He coulda been so awesome, but instead he was just used as a crappy plot device so that the film semi-made sense and then played no further important role.

Magneto: Awesome casting, awesome acting, awesome end. And then... Eh? Why is he suddenly regaining his powers? I though this was supposed to be the LAST STAND... not some kind of sequel-inviting mid-series movie.

Harry Potter: The books aren't too bad. The films are just awful on so many levels.

As is Daniel Radcliffe. Please. Get someone who can act.

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

NEVER, EVER let George Lucas direct a film. Producer, sure, but direct? NUH-UH!
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: brainface on May 12, 2007, 05:50:05 PM
QuoteWhich is a sign of bad writing. I've never seen the movie, but if you can remove one aspect from a character and instantly turn them into a cardboard cutout, there's a problem.
already knows[/i]. :)
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Stargate525 on May 12, 2007, 06:54:10 PM
Quote from: WensleydaleAs is Daniel Radcliffe. Please. Get someone who can act.
Thank you! I knew it couldn't just me me.

"I'm so happy you're alive." :-|
"I'm going to KILL YOU." :-|

These should not have the same expression!
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: SDragon on May 12, 2007, 06:54:55 PM
Quote from: brainface
QuoteWhich is a sign of bad writing. I've never seen the movie, but if you can remove one aspect from a character and instantly turn them into a cardboard cutout, there's a problem.

Right. I just feel this was an unneccessary distinguishing feature. He was a tough detective that was exceedingly good at his job, that was, ultimately, rooting for the guys he was supposed to take down. Straight or gay, that's already cool.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: DeeL on May 13, 2007, 03:43:25 PM
I, Robot:  Okay, let's get something straight right off the bat.  I have never actually read Asimov's I, Robot, so I don't actually know how faithful the movie was, but the  flipside of that is that I didn't know how faithful it should have been, so I don't need to worry about that.  I can just judge the movie as is.

That said, there were elements of this movie that negated its good qualities.  Will Smith can act, and does so here as well as he could given the fact that his character was absurdly written.  So his life was saved by a robot in a situation where a little girl died before his eyes, and he's traumatized, that's ok - but then becoming irrationally prejudiced against robots to the point of accusing them of crimes without evidence?  That is one policeman who should have been riding a desk and reporting for counseling...

And the big payoff - spoiler alert, for anyone who cares - that the Three Laws would impel the supercomputer who runs the robots to hurt/kill a lot of humans in order to take control of the human race is just stupid.  The supercomputer might as well have been depicted stroking a digital cat named Mister Biggles for all the sense of that villainous motivation.

So:  Decent performances, cool fx, ear-bleedingly stupid writing.

Evolution:  I like the premise of an alien biota that can adapt and evolve from single-celled organisms into such a biodiverse ecology that the one on Earth is in danger of being overrun.  I even like the idea of turning it into a comedy.  And this movie does have some good jokes in it.

But David Duchovny and Julianne Moore?  I'm sorry, but trying to suspend disbelief with such dry leads was like lifting a sack of coal.

The Chronicles of Riddick:  Most of this movie was pretty cool, I give it the thumbs up in general, but I have one complaint - Jack switches to being called Kira and becomes all adultly curvy on the outside while emotionally regressing to age 6.  In a movie like this it is inevitable that the characters will be simplified, but this one was simplified in the wrong way.  

I think maybe I'm prejudiced on account of the name.  Kira?  Man, there are a lot of Kiras out there.  There was one in Dark Crystal, which was cool when it was an actual exotic name, feminine without being familiar.  By the time Kira Nareese showed up on DS9, I think there had been a few other rather popular Kiras around.  By the time of Chronicles of Riddick, I honestly think a moratorium should have been declared on that name for entertainment purposes.

And finally, The Chronicles of Narnia: LWW.  It's hard for me to nail down the improvements I would have made, except to say that there would have been a bit less travelling.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: brainface on May 13, 2007, 03:59:08 PM
QuoteAnd the big payoff - spoiler alert, for anyone who cares - that the Three Laws would impel the supercomputer who runs the robots to hurt/kill a lot of humans in order to take control of the human race is just stupid. The supercomputer might as well have been depicted stroking a digital cat named Mister Biggles for all the sense of that villainous motivation.

Hilariously enough, that's pretty much a shout-out to Asimov. Not quote word for word, but the "zeroeth law" was that you could kill humans to save humanity.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: DeeL on May 13, 2007, 04:44:41 PM
Quote from: brainfaceHilariously enough, that's pretty much a shout-out to Asimov. Not quote word for word, but the "zeroeth law" was that you could kill humans to save humanity.

See, I'm down with that.  Really, I see the sense in it.  The problem is that it was totally unnecessary.  I mean, let's face it - the robots were everywhere.  Tactically, they already had control.  In such a situation, the key to minimizing fatalities would lie in preventing anyone from recognizing that fact.  You don't make an entire population feel threatened and oppressed in an effort to stabilize a society.  If you have the time - and robots have all the time in the world, one would think - you would inculcate peaceful and productive habits while counteracting specific instances of violence.  For the supercomputer to show it's hand that way was a dominance display that just invited the revolt that it got, hence deeply stupid.  

If I had been the supercomputer in that setting, my policy would have been "Speak softly, give your big stick to an old man who needs a cane, and carry an invisible X-ray laser to deal with people who absolutely won't be satisfied until lives are lost."
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Stargate525 on May 13, 2007, 06:42:23 PM
Quote from: DeeLSee, I'm down with that.  Really, I see the sense in it.  The problem is that it was totally unnecessary.  I mean, let's face it - the robots were everywhere.  Tactically, they already had control.  In such a situation, the key to minimizing fatalities would lie in preventing anyone from recognizing that fact.  You don't make an entire population feel threatened and oppressed in an effort to stabilize a society.  If you have the time - and robots have all the time in the world, one would think - you would inculcate peaceful and productive habits while counteracting specific instances of violence.  For the supercomputer to show it's hand that way was a dominance display that just invited the revolt that it got, hence deeply stupid.  

If I had been the supercomputer in that setting, my policy would have been "Speak softly, give your big stick to an old man who needs a cane, and carry an invisible X-ray laser to deal with people who absolutely won't be satisfied until lives are lost."
brainface stole my thunder...

The problem is that the Doctor who died right at the beginning forced her hand. She knew he had gotten a message off to the cop, and that he would be investigating. He fell under the heading of people who won't be satisfied, and she tried to use the invisible X-ray laser, twice. By that time he was getting close to proving it to someone who could do something about it, and she really didn't have any other option.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: DeeL on May 14, 2007, 12:21:44 AM
Quote from: Stargate525The problem is that the Doctor who died right at the beginning forced her hand. She knew he had gotten a message off to the cop, and that he would be investigating. He fell under the heading of people who won't be satisfied, and she tried to use the invisible X-ray laser, twice. By that time he was getting close to proving it to someone who could do something about it, and she really didn't have any other option.

Sorry, but I must call BS.  See, it wasn't the supercomputer who killed the Doctor - it was the 'off the grid' robot the Doctor had built without the 3 laws, on the Doctor's orders no less.  The Doctor ostensibly wanted his own death to be the wake-up call to give a beleagured humanity a chance to come to grips with an inhuman, vastly intelligent adversary bent on world conquest.

It's a great dramatic gesture, but my point is this - the conquest had already happened.  There was no need, none at all, for the robots to suddenly start trying to keep humans indoors or control their movements in any way.  There was not the slightest reason for anyone to be alarmed or warned at all.  There was no reason for a supercomputer to start blaring 'serve the computer - the computer is your friend!'  

The whole power play was stupid.  There was no other word for it.  Will Smith's policedude was discrediting himself right and left - the finishing touch would have been for the supercomputer to just let him, and then if anyone had actually listened to simply make sure all the files were backed up then sit there calmly and say, "I have saved 147 human lives in the last 24 hours.  Would you like me to open a phone line to one of them so you can tell them what you've been doing with your day?"

I believe it was Theodore Sturgeon - or possibly James Blish, I'm not sure - who issued a challenge to any science fiction writers who would take it.  In describing a nonhuman intelligence, said writers were to depict something that was as smart as a human, but that thought completely differently.  In the movie I, Robot the scriptwriters did the exact opposite.  They depicted something that was many times more intelligent than a human but that thought exactly like one.

A conquerer insists that the people fly his flag.  The wise ruler permits them to fly their own.  Guess which one has to slit the most throats?

I know, I know, it's a sci-fi action-adventure movie.  Starring Will Smith, no less.  But look - if the motivations of a supercomputer are as bluntly political as that, it just flattens my suspension of disbelief.  And this movie could have done better.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Matt Larkin (author) on May 14, 2007, 11:00:48 AM
DeeL, I think part of your point seems to be that the computer failed to understand human nature.  I think that was part of the point of the story, anyway - that it couldn't understand even as well as other humans (which may not be that well).
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: khyron1144 on May 15, 2007, 04:33:25 PM
Believe it or not, I actually like most movies I've seen.  My reaction is either: woah that's a good movie! or Woah that was so bad it was good!  I suppose to make a movie I really don't like it would have to be completely mediocre and elicit neither of those responses.


But the title is movies that should've been better, so here's one:
Peter Jackson's King Kong.  I loved the old black & white King Kong.  I loved Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies.  The main problem with King Knog is that I actually fell asleep in the theatre, while watching it.  I was tired, but a good Kong should provide enough of an adrenaline rush to prop me up.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: SA on May 15, 2007, 09:40:19 PM
I only got impatient once the setting returned to New York.  I enjoyed everything up to the chloroform, then I just went "meh".
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Stargate525 on May 15, 2007, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: DeeLSorry, but I must call BS.  See, it wasn't the supercomputer who killed the Doctor - it was the 'off the grid' robot the Doctor had built without the 3 laws, on the Doctor's orders no less.  The Doctor ostensibly wanted his own death to be the wake-up call to give a beleagured humanity a chance to come to grips with an inhuman, vastly intelligent adversary bent on world conquest.
I never said she killed him, just that the death forced her hand.

Quote from: DeeLIt's a great dramatic gesture, but my point is this - the conquest had already happened.  There was no need, none at all, for the robots to suddenly start trying to keep humans indoors or control their movements in any way.  There was not the slightest reason for anyone to be alarmed or warned at all.  There was no reason for a supercomputer to start blaring 'serve the computer - the computer is your friend!'
The conquest had NOT happened yet. You're thinking that the robots had some sort of magical control over the people; they didn't. Just because they were a facet of society doesn't mean they were in control, and even the 'control' they had wasn't nearly enough. They didn't just want to save Timmy from drowning, they wanted to make sure he didn't get near the water.
Quote from: DeeLThe whole power play was stupid.  There was no other word for it.  Will Smith's policedude was discrediting himself right and left - the finishing touch would have been for the supercomputer to just let him, and then if anyone had actually listened to simply make sure all the files were backed up then sit there calmly and say, "I have saved 147 human lives in the last 24 hours.  Would you like me to open a phone line to one of them so you can tell them what you've been doing with your day?"
I'm confused here. What power play? It's quite obvious that Vicky is running the show; the only real play here is the times she tried to kill him. And no matter how discredited, he had the off-the-grid robot, the Doc's clues, and an insider. He would have found and published the truth eventually. I admit there were better ways to do it than throw 100+ robots at him (one with a gun would have sufficed), but it's hardly stupid.

Quote from: DeeLI believe it was Theodore Sturgeon - or possibly James Blish, I'm not sure - who issued a challenge to any science fiction writers who would take it.  In describing a nonhuman intelligence, said writers were to depict something that was as smart as a human, but that thought completely differently.  In the movie I, Robot the scriptwriters did the exact opposite.  They depicted something that was many times more intelligent than a human but that thought exactly like one.
I dunno; I found some of Vicky's logic rather alien to me. However, this is a matter of opinion, and I doubt I'll be swaying you in this regard.
Quote from: DeeLA conquerer insists that the people fly his flag.  The wise ruler permits them to fly their own.  Guess which one has to slit the most throats?
You're confusing 'ruling' with 'protecting.' There is no way to enact the kind of total protection the robots are talking about without being in totalitarian control. Overt and pre-emptive protection cannot be covertly done, it just can't.

Quote from: DeeLI know, I know, it's a sci-fi action-adventure movie.  Starring Will Smith, no less.  But look - if the motivations of a supercomputer are as bluntly political as that, it just flattens my suspension of disbelief.  And this movie could have done better.
bluntly political? Does the computer want money? tax reform? to remove the current government (which I saw none of, by the way). If by political you mean 'control oriented,' then I suppose you're right, but that definition is far too broad a term. By that definition, most of the stuff I do would be considered 'bluntly political.'

I don't remember the name of it, but it was either a Bradbury or an Asimov short story that had just this kind of complete control being enacted. If I find it, I'll give you the name. You should read it.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ra-Tiel on May 17, 2007, 01:53:53 PM
Quote from: JharvissWell, I've so far disagreed with everyone, save Ra-Tiel and the D&D movies.  They were atrocious.
Hehe. However, there are so many ways how a DnD movie could have rocked the cinemas, it's not even funny to start with. Even if disliked (despised?) by many roleplayers, a movie or even a trilogy about Drizzt and his escape from Menzoberranzan, or the fight at Mithril Hall would have been awesome. Or a movie about Elminster in Hell. Or ... or ... or ... ... ...

Instead, they decided to come up with a non-existant setting that doesn't have any similarities with DnD as we know it (cities like Coruscant, "magic powder", my ass... x. ).

Quote from: Jharviss[...] Reign of Fire was my most despised movie.  I really did not like it.  It's the only movie I've ever left the theatre because of.
I really had to look through the thread again to see if that abomination of a movie has already been mentioned. :D Well, yes. Of course, dragons are immune to nuclear weapons and the military arsenal of whole America, Europe, and Asia, but a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder makes their head explode. :-/
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ishmayl-Retired on May 17, 2007, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: Ra-TielWell, yes. Of course, dragons are immune to nuclear weapons and the military arsenal of whole America, Europe, and Asia, but a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder makes their head explode. :-/
just[/i] a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder.

It was a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder... and some love!
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ra-Tiel on May 17, 2007, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: IshmaylYou miss the point!  It wasn't just a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder.

It was a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder... and some love!
:poke:  :poke:  :poke:

 :-p
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: brainface on May 17, 2007, 02:42:58 PM
Quote from: Ishmayl
Quote from: Ra-TielWell, yes. Of course, dragons are immune to nuclear weapons and the military arsenal of whole America, Europe, and Asia, but a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder makes their head explode. :-/
just[/i] a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder.

It was a crossbow quarrel with some blackpowder... and some love!

No, you see: bombs could kill them, but it only produced more ash for them to eat. Because they derived sustenance from ASH. Turns out ash is full of protein. Also carbohydrates? Personally i can't blame the scientists for not figuring that out "until it was too late."
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Hibou on May 17, 2007, 03:04:05 PM
QuoteHehe. However, there are so many ways how a DnD movie could have rocked the cinemas, it's not even funny to start with. Even if disliked (despised?) by many roleplayers, a movie or even a trilogy about Drizzt and his escape from Menzoberranzan, or the fight at Mithril Hall would have been awesome. Or a movie about Elminster in Hell. Or ... or ... or ... ... ...

While I would love to see movies about Drizzt (The Dark Elf Trilogy in particular), I think Elminster in Hell would be horrible as a movie, probably because I hated the book. I read it when I was like 14 or 15 and thought it was awful. I don't think it would make a very good movie even from an unbiased perspective because it's pretty... uneventful.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ra-Tiel on May 17, 2007, 03:19:54 PM
Quote from: brainfaceNo, you see: bombs could kill them, but it only produced more ash for them to eat. Because they derived sustenance from ASH. Turns out ash is full of protein. Also carbohydrates? Personally i can't blame the scientists for not figuring that out "until it was too late."
Well, as was seen in the movie, the dragons (or rather their wings) were not very resistant to damage. Therefore I really cannot imagine a dragon facing off a Gepard (http://youtube.com/watch?v=E5iL1EkSkRs)
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ra-Tiel on May 17, 2007, 03:24:47 PM
Quote from: TrollWhile I would love to see movies about Drizzt (The Dark Elf Trilogy in particular), I think Elminster in Hell would be horrible as a movie, probably because I hated the book. I read it when I was like 14 or 15 and thought it was awful. I don't think it would make a very good movie even from an unbiased perspective because it's pretty... uneventful.
I was just giving examples. There are probably countless good "Forgotten Realms" or "Eberron" or "Dragonlance" or "Greyhawk" novells out there that would have made wonderful movies. Well, at least better than this crap they finally came up with. x.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Hibou on May 17, 2007, 03:36:43 PM
Quote from: Ra-Tiel
Quote from: TrollWhile I would love to see movies about Drizzt (The Dark Elf Trilogy in particular), I think Elminster in Hell would be horrible as a movie, probably because I hated the book. I read it when I was like 14 or 15 and thought it was awful. I don't think it would make a very good movie even from an unbiased perspective because it's pretty... uneventful.
I was just giving examples. There are probably countless good "Forgotten Realms" or "Eberron" or "Dragonlance" or "Greyhawk" novells out there that would have made wonderful movies. Well, at least better than this crap they finally came up with. x.

True. I honestly think a movie adaptation of one of the books predominantly about Artemis Entreri and Jarlaxle would be totally awesome to watch as a movie. Jarlaxle's badass. People would love to watch him on screen.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ishmayl-Retired on May 17, 2007, 03:45:49 PM
I don't think I would want to see Drizzt movies, or Elminster movies.  I think, if they make a FR movie, it should be about a new hero, who possibly meets up with standard FR NPCs along his journey.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Hibou on May 17, 2007, 04:22:00 PM
Quote from: IshmaylI don't think I would want to see Drizzt movies, or Elminster movies.  I think, if they make a FR movie, it should be about a new hero, who possibly meets up with standard FR NPCs along his journey.

That'd be cool too, as long as the character was just a normal person who became a hero, instead of some "I am the son of a demon/born with Spellfire/am a vastly superior and more powerful race/am a godling/etc." type of gimmick. I don't know about you guys, but those backgrounds seem all-too-common/already strained in FR to me.

EDIT: Although... Jaerc did link me to a sample chapter from a new novel about two assassins of Mask and a person who happens to be the son of Mephistopheles that would be WICKED to see made into a movie.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: DeeL on May 17, 2007, 08:45:00 PM
Re:  Dungeons and Dragons -

http://www.agonybooth.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4941&whichpage=1

Teh ego is hungry.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: DeeL on May 18, 2007, 06:52:21 PM
And oh, Stargate, you write an excellent post but I'm not going to give it the reply it deserves simply because that would drag this thread completely off-topic.  I simply note that in all your argumentation, you made my original point - that if it takes that much explanation to make me think the supercomputer wasn't dumb as a stump, the movie could have been better.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: SDragon on May 18, 2007, 07:02:36 PM
Not having seen dungeons and dragons (note the lack of capitalization), I can't judge ow close to the movie that is, but it's still a great review, DeeL!
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Ra-Tiel on May 19, 2007, 03:14:28 AM
@DeeL: Lol! "This movie doesn't deserve an ampersand!" :D :D :D
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Tangential on May 19, 2007, 04:07:36 PM
Quote from: Troll Jedi KnightEDIT: Although... Jaerc did link me to a sample chapter from a new novel about two assassins of Mask and a person who happens to be the son of Mephistopheles that would be WICKED to see made into a movie.


http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_post.php?quote.30291
 (//Shadowstorm)
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Wensleydale on May 19, 2007, 05:05:41 PM
DeeL... I LOLed! You deserve an oscar. :P
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: Kindling on May 23, 2007, 03:41:25 AM
All of them.
Title: Movies that should've been better
Post by: DeeL on May 23, 2007, 06:53:39 PM
New suggestion.  

Every single movie based on the life of Cleopatra.  

I mean come on.  Cleopatra's biography is inherently fascinating, but I have yet to see anything - especially including Liz Taylor's effort - that makes her seem like an  interesting person, let alone the intriguing Last Pharaoh that she was.

I think it has to do with Hollywood's insistence on putting 'lovely' women in the role.  It was pretty well established that Cleopatra wasn't a classical beauty - the accounts of that time clearly stated that it was in her movements and attentions that she gave a sensual impression.  Hollywood doesn't do well with 'beautiful in motion but not at rest.'

That's it for now.  I'm tired and punchy, so I kind of hope this was coherent.

Oh, and hey Kindling - not exactly a cinema buff, eh?