Name a movie that ended up being a victim of its own production decisions? (i.e. mIscast, too long, bad ending etc.) The winner gets the honor of posting the next question the following Monday.
On the one hand it was always doomed having been handed the baton ten strides behind the original trilogy thanks to the tangled-in-the-blocks Phantom Menace, and the tripped-over-its-own-shoes Attack of the Clones.
But it could have made up for that weak start with a few key changes such as:
1) Radically reducing the CGI and focusing on the emotional story of Anakin vs. Temptation and evil. First gen CGI is in EVERY SINGLE FRAME and it's the death blow to this trilogy.
2) Eliminate the Gen. Grievous character entirely. It's a pointless distraction. The only big bad you need is puppet master Palpetine.
3) Make Palpetine trick Anakin into believing that the JEDI KILLED Padme along with the entire Senate. Then he could go rage berserker out of a sense of dissolution and betrayal.
I’m going to jump in with the obvious while I have the chance — Oppenheimer. It’s full of repulsive characters, a women-only-as-sex-and-ego-affirmation message, and soooo boring. You wouldn’t think a movie about the potential end of the world could be so dull, but this one manages it. The acting was incredible but not enough to save this presumptuous dumpster fire which demands way too much grace from moviegoers.
David was watching it the other night while I read. Just hearing the dialogue and the morbid musical score made me want claw my ears off. I finally begged him to turn it off.
The movie we love to make fun of in our house— Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood.
It was obvious they went for top billing actors for profit verses the best fit for the roles. Kevin Costner’s janky attempt at an English accent was so horrible it was distracting. Sometimes he would drop out of it entirely only to pick it back up a few lines later. Freeman’s accent was even worse. It’s not even clear what he was going for. And both men were past the age of typical warrior types—Freeman was 53, Costner a little closer to a believable Robin at age 36, but still not exactly fitting for the role. I’m not saying older dudes can’t be fierce fighters, but for this story (and perhaps for any other) these two weren’t believable. And don’t even get me started on the bad acting. The whole movie was an unintentional comedy.
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.
On the one hand it was always doomed having been handed the baton ten strides behind the original trilogy thanks to the tangled-in-the-blocks Phantom Menace, and the tripped-over-its-own-shoes Attack of the Clones.
But it could have made up for that weak start with a few key changes such as:
1) Radically reducing the CGI and focusing on the emotional story of Anakin vs. Temptation and evil. First gen CGI is in EVERY SINGLE FRAME and it's the death blow to this trilogy.
2) Eliminate the Gen. Grievous character entirely. It's a pointless distraction. The only big bad you need is puppet master Palpetine.
3) Make Palpetine trick Anakin into believing that the JEDI KILLED Padme along with the entire Senate. Then he could go rage berserker out of a sense of dissolution and betrayal.
🎯 a terrible disappointment
And the winner is Shannon with Oppenheimer. Congratulations, Shannon, you get to choose Monday's question.
I’m going to jump in with the obvious while I have the chance — Oppenheimer. It’s full of repulsive characters, a women-only-as-sex-and-ego-affirmation message, and soooo boring. You wouldn’t think a movie about the potential end of the world could be so dull, but this one manages it. The acting was incredible but not enough to save this presumptuous dumpster fire which demands way too much grace from moviegoers.
David was watching it the other night while I read. Just hearing the dialogue and the morbid musical score made me want claw my ears off. I finally begged him to turn it off.
Now I want to see it just to see if it really measures down to the likes of Hoffa or, yes, Revenge of the Sith.
The movie we love to make fun of in our house— Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood.
It was obvious they went for top billing actors for profit verses the best fit for the roles. Kevin Costner’s janky attempt at an English accent was so horrible it was distracting. Sometimes he would drop out of it entirely only to pick it back up a few lines later. Freeman’s accent was even worse. It’s not even clear what he was going for. And both men were past the age of typical warrior types—Freeman was 53, Costner a little closer to a believable Robin at age 36, but still not exactly fitting for the role. I’m not saying older dudes can’t be fierce fighters, but for this story (and perhaps for any other) these two weren’t believable. And don’t even get me started on the bad acting. The whole movie was an unintentional comedy.
Use a spoon, it will hurt more.