BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I just looked through my Netflix queue, and save some foreign crap that nobody would ever watch, I would say that the movie sthat gave me the biggest cringe about having to sit through them again were Transformers and The Guardian. Transformers just sucked the life out of you. It wasn't fun. It was too long. Not even Megan Fox could save it. I wanted to rip my eyeballs out. My girlfriend made me get the Guardian. When I saw how long it was I just groaned. Kevin Costner needs to pull a George Costanza - every decision he makes about what movie to be in is wrong. Add horrible Ashton Kutchner and a story about him becoming a diver to atone for his friends dying and you have one of the worst movies ever made. Stay away.Your gf made you go to the Guardian? hahahha does she have some big Ashton Kutchner crush? I couldn't stop laughing obnoxiously through the preview of that in the theatre when I saw it. Link to post Share on other sites
showstopper24 0 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I'll tell you what's an example of it.. those god damn Lord of the Rings movies. There is so much boring homoerotic terrible character development in those movies.. the fact that they released extended version dvds makes me shudder. those movies should have been 2 hours, not 3 or heaven forbid 4. agree though I still enjoyed the LOTR franchise. the hobbit on hobbit love fest was a bit much. I assume the extended versions are for hardcore fans of the book who were upset that various plot points were left out. Or it was a money grab. probably both.I completley disagree. I thought the movies were great. You need to remember that they weren't just movies, they were books on film. There were actually many things that happened after the ring was destroyed that didn't end up in the movie. There was an entire other story line about Hobbiton being taken over and the Hobbits had to take it back.I liked the books, I didn't love them, but I got the extended version of the DVDs and loved watching Return of the King again.Return of the King was the worst for filler. It's sad that it's the movie that won all the awards.How can you say that it didn't deserve all those awards. Even if you didn't like the story, the movie was fantastic and it really did some groundbreaking things that movies today use. Link to post Share on other sites
bigkg 0 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I completley disagree. I thought the movies were great. You need to remember that they weren't just movies, they were books on film. There were actually many things that happened after the ring was destroyed that didn't end up in the movie. There was an entire other story line about Hobbiton being taken over and the Hobbits had to take it back.I liked the books, I didn't love them, but I got the extended version of the DVDs and loved watching Return of the King again.How can you say that it didn't deserve all those awards. Even if you didn't like the story, the movie was fantastic and it really did some groundbreaking things that movies today use.This doesn't really excuse all the bull shit filler. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 some people just have horrible opinions and are therefore not worthy of posting in the threadalso, if you're drunk/high, blades of glory is much better.I agree wholeheartedly with both of your points (although in fairness I have not watched Blades of Glory not high, but high it is pretty funny, and I'm not some dope who thinks everything is funny when he's high).Ed Wood I submit....Magnolia.Both of these submission are hilariously off-track. Both are fantastic movies, critically acclaimed, etc etc. MARTIN LANDAU WON AN OSCAR FOR ED WOOD.Edit: oops, I forgot the disparaging comments - You guys must have the attention spans of a 3-year-old with adhd. How can you dislike these movies so much?? If I was listing my top 20 movies of the last 20 years, both of those would DEFINITELY be included. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I completley disagree. I thought the movies were great. You need to remember that they weren't just movies, they were books on film. There were actually many things that happened after the ring was destroyed that didn't end up in the movie. There was an entire other story line about Hobbiton being taken over and the Hobbits had to take it back.I liked the books, I didn't love them, but I got the extended version of the DVDs and loved watching Return of the King again.no, you need to remember that they are movies, not books. It dont' give a shit what the source material comes from, 100's and 100's of movies have been adaptations of books, and not all of those movies wallow in self-indulgence.. when you make a movie, your goal should be to make a good movie, not to stay true to the source material. And the fact that LotR comes pre-packaged with a huge and hardcore fan base, that have huge and often unrealistic expectations for the movie, the challenge to make a successful movie becomes much greater, and the artistic freedom of the movie maker becomes much less. Ultimately, I think that kind of thing is exactly what limited how good these movies could be. The ents for example, added exactly nothing to the movie, the whole merry/pippen story line in general would have been cut if this was an original screenplay, and not from some hallowed text. They did a good job of "bringing the books to life", but it didn't' do as good of a job in making a entertaining movie. RotK already drags on for about 45 minutes after the movie essentially ends ( IE when Frodo destroys the ring). If they would have tacked on another meaningless hour about the battle of hobbiton, I would have shot myself in the face. I actually think the battle of hobbiton is a huge flaw in the original books, as any action that takes place after the rings destruction is extremely anti-climactic, and the 100 pages or more after the rings destruction are extremely indulgent and just show that Tolkien could have used a decent editor. It's like he couldn't bare to end the books, so he threw the gang out for one last adventure.Also, I think brv was saying the trilogy is essentially 1 long movie, not three movies, and giving RotK an oscar but not the other two is arbitrary. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 How can you say that it didn't deserve all those awards. Even if you didn't like the story, the movie was fantastic and it really did some groundbreaking things that movies today use.I didn't realize that movies today continue to torture viewers by having like 50 endings for no reason except to piss people off. My bad.Showstopper, you're a worthless piece of crap. I hope you get rectal cancer. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Also, I think brv was saying the trilogy is essentially 1 long movie, not three movies, and giving RotK an oscar but not the other two is arbitrary.yes. In my opinion the first two are much better than the last one. Of course, that doesn't mean I've had any desire to see any of them since I saw them in the theater. Link to post Share on other sites
sennin 0 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I love bad movies... the worst movie of all time...MANOS: Hands of FateTrust me. The continuity errors are awesome.Lol, our teacher showed that to us in gr10 just because it was so awful. Iirc. the lead actor killed himself sometime after it was released Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I agree wholeheartedly with both of your points (although in fairness I have not watched Blades of Glory not high, but high it is pretty funny, and I'm not some dope who thinks everything is funny when he's high).Both of these submission are hilariously off-track. Both are fantastic movies, critically acclaimed, etc etc. MARTIN LANDAU WON AN OSCAR FOR ED WOOD.Edit: oops, I forgot the disparaging comments - You guys must have the attention spans of a 3-year-old with adhd. How can you dislike these movies so much?? If I was listing my top 20 movies of the last 20 years, both of those would DEFINITELY be included.too long, too pointless, stupid ending, waste of tons of good actors. I made my reasons clear.I liked Ed Wood a lot. What can I say? I honestly think if you showed Magnolia to 100 FCPers that 75 would hate it and 25 would love it. There does not seem to be much middle ground on this movie. And there are plenty of longer movies I have enjoyed....I just didnt like it at all.....really doubt it was my attention span as most of my favorite movies are on the longer side. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 too long, too pointless, stupid ending, waste of tons of good actors. I made my reasons clear.I liked Ed Wood a lot. What can I say? I honestly think if you showed Magnolia to 100 FCPers that 75 would hate it and 25 would love it. There does not seem to be much middle ground on this movie. And there are plenty of longer movies I have enjoyed....I just didnt like it at all.....really doubt it was my attention span as most of my favorite movies are on the longer side.Yeah I just threw in the personal attacks for fun and cuz the OP demanded it . Link to post Share on other sites
Governator 54 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 The Master of Disguisehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295427/Definitely in my bottom 5. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 too long, too pointless, stupid ending, waste of tons of good actors. I made my reasons clear.I liked Ed Wood a lot. What can I say? I honestly think if you showed Magnolia to 100 FCPers that 75 would hate it and 25 would love it. There does not seem to be much middle ground on this movie. And there are plenty of longer movies I have enjoyed....I just didnt like it at all.....really doubt it was my attention span as most of my favorite movies are on the longer side.75 out of 100 fcper's probably bought DN's book too.. what's your point? Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 The Master of Disguisehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295427/Definitely in my bottom 5. You no like Pistachio Disguisey? I don't know, I think on some level you should have never seen it, it was made for kids, Carvey basically said that's why he agreed to do it, so his kids could watch a movie he was in. I agree it was pretty bad. It's tough to really pinpoint a top 5 or anything, there is only one I ever walked out of and that was Life with Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence. My favorite movie of all time as far as a total surprise was Menace to Society. I saw that at a gangster filled theatre in Phoenix and it was the most fun I ever had at a movie, while completely terrified. Great movie, it totally changed my views on the black community not at all. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I completley disagree. I thought the movies were great. You need to remember that they weren't just movies, they were books on film. There were actually many things that happened after the ring was destroyed that didn't end up in the movie. There was an entire other story line about Hobbiton being taken over and the Hobbits had to take it back.I liked the books, I didn't love them, but I got the extended version of the DVDs and loved watching Return of the King again.How can you say that it didn't deserve all those awards. Even if you didn't like the story, the movie was fantastic and it really did some groundbreaking things that movies today use.You mean the shire? I've never heard it called hobbiton before. Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 You mean the shire? I've never heard it called hobbiton before.There is a place in the shire called Hobbiton.... Showstopper probably saw this thread and picked up his LOTR book and looked at the maps to try and look like he is smart.And I agree that the endings were ridiculous... they should have stopped it after Aragorn was named king. All the shire BS with Samwise was a waste. Other than the endings I loved the movie though. The action was great... especially with Sams fight with Shelob that huge spider.Yea they might have been more in depth with the story in a HBO series... but the special effects especially with the battle scenes would have sucked. LOTR had a huge budget which a HBO series wouldnt have. Cant wait for Song of Ice and Fire on HBO though. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yea they might have been more in depth with the story in a HBO series... but the special effects especially with the battle scenes would have sucked. LOTR had a huge budget which a HBO series wouldnt have. Cant wait for Song of Ice and Fire on HBO though.That could have if it was animated. Link to post Share on other sites
runthemover 39 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 the only thing you really need to know about Kevin Costner is that he turned down the lead role in thishttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/to play a part that was cut in thishttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085244/to be fair, I've never seen 'The Big Chill' but I'll bet it's no 'War Games'To confuse you about everything, I'll admit that I like 'The Postman' Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 75 out of 100 fcper's probably bought DN's book too.. what's your point?I have to have a point? ironically, Magnolia was on Encore-Love tonight at 10:45. I watched some of it. I still dont like it. Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJon 175 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I nominate Hard Target, simply because of this one scene...http://youtube.com/watch?v=x3HpJ42WSYw Link to post Share on other sites
showstopper24 0 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 This doesn't really excuse all the bull shit filler.I'm saying, that if it was just a movie, they could have ended it after the big battle, but the book had a lot more stuff in it.I didn't realize that movies today continue to torture viewers by having like 50 endings for no reason except to piss people off. My bad.Showstopper, you're a worthless piece of crap. I hope you get rectal cancer.First of all, ouch. Second of all, a lot of people liked the endings. Also, not all the Oscars they won (I think it was 11) were for best movie. They won for things like, best adapted screenplay, original score, visual effects, art direction, costuming, make-up, sound mixing, and film editing. So if the only reason why you didn't like the movie is because you didn't like the ending, there were still many other reasons why it deserved awards.There is a place in the shire called Hobbiton.... Showstopper probably saw this thread and picked up his LOTR book and looked at the maps to try and look like he is smart.And I agree that the endings were ridiculous... they should have stopped it after Aragorn was named king. All the shire BS with Samwise was a waste. Other than the endings I loved the movie though. The action was great... especially with Sams fight with Shelob that huge spider.Yea they might have been more in depth with the story in a HBO series... but the special effects especially with the battle scenes would have sucked. LOTR had a huge budget which a HBO series wouldnt have. Cant wait for Song of Ice and Fire on HBO though.It's been a long time since I read the books and I did not go look up a map to appear smart. I know the main place is called the Shire, but Hobbition is a place in the Shire (I think).Also, the trilogy cost $270 million to produce. A little too much for an HBO series. It is also one of the highest grossing film franchises of all time, so it was well worth it. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yeah I just threw in the personal attacks for fun and cuz the OP demanded it .Glad to see the thread is finally on track! Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJon 175 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yeah I just threw in the personal attacks for fun and cuz the OP demanded it .Fuck you.Fag. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Also, the trilogy cost $270 million to produce. A little too much for an HBO series. It is also one of the highest grossing film franchises of all time, so it was well worth it.Lets go with False!Rome on HBO cost more than 100 million per season to produce.Split the trilogy up into 3 seasons and wow, same budget! Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Cant wait for Song of Ice and Fire on HBO though.It's not a guaranteed thing, latest crap I heard is they are trying to pick between making it and some King Arther story. Apparently NBC is doing a mini-series on King Arthur too so maybe that will help them make the right choice. Link to post Share on other sites
Governator 54 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I don't think an HBO series would make as much money compared to being one of the most successful movie set of all time.Not to mention, the point of a movie to reach the masses worldwide. I'm just in Canada and we don't get HBO. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now