# Disappointing Trends in Movies



## Hijinks (Jul 25, 2005)

I'm not one to be severly disappointed in a movie, however there is one trend in today's filmmaking that I really don't like.  It's the trend of directors having the camera jerk around during a battle scene so that you feel like you're "in the middle" of the fight.

I'm sure some of you out there really like it, but I personally actually get motion sickness from the camera jerking around like that.  The first film I noticed it in was _Saving Private Ryan_, which is also the only film I've ever walked out on in a theater; I was just physically sick to my stomach from the jerky camera movement.  I've noticed it happening more and more in films, though, and I really don't like it.

It was even present in the _Lord of the Rings_ films, although to a lesser degree than _Ryan._  I remember it happening first during the fight in Moria, and I remember saying "Oh no!" once I realized it, because I was afraid of getting sick again.

I also remember seeing a preview for _War of the Worlds_ that had brief, very quick flashes of the herky-jerky action and I totally couldn't follow it; I had no idea what was going on.  Thankfully, the actual movie wasn't as bad as the preview.

I go to movies to be entertained; I don't really think the Fellowship of the Ring happened and I don't need to feel like I'm there.  I wish directors didn't feel the need to make it more "real."

What are your movie pet peeves?


----------



## Elemental (Jul 25, 2005)

I hear you on the jerky camera. It was really bad in _Resident Evil: Nemesis_. During the final one-on-one battle between the heroine and the Nemesis, I honestly couldn't tell who was hitting who.


My own pet hates--

Any fantasy film that has enemies who wear heavy armour....which is utterly useless in stopping any blow from the good guys. As I was watching the LotR trilogy, I was seriously starting to wonder why the evil powers didn't just send the orcs into battle naked rather than invest so much time and effort into making armour--at least then they might have a chance of dodging an attack.

A female character who is established early on as being a kickass fighter, but becomes inexpicably useless when it's time for them to get abducted / killed / stand back and let the menfolk handle things.

Almost all romantic comedies that feature any of the following--a precocious kid who's wiser than the adults, the message that women just need to find a sugar daddy rather than invest anything in self-improvement, ditziness being presented as a positive character trait, or the message that stalking people is fine so long as you're destined to be together.


----------



## Andre (Jul 25, 2005)

Thirded on jerky camera views. I didn't like it in _Three Kings_, nor in _War of the Worlds_, nor in a few TV shows/movies I've seen. I didn't really notice it in LoTR, but I had other problems with those movies. 

Another pet peeve: Playing the music so loud, I can't hear the dialogue. I can't count the number of DVD's I play where I have to constantly adjust the sound so I can hear what the actors are saying. Soundtracks are supposed to enhance the experience, not overwhelm it.


----------



## Aeson (Jul 25, 2005)

Any movie with kids in it that seem wiser than the adults is annoying. In some movies I think they should have gone with "children should be seen and not heard".


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jul 25, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> What are your movie pet peeves?




-Volume that's too loud.  Yes, certain moments in a film should be loud, and those are o.k., but the entire film doesn't need to be 100 dB.  I take ear plugs to Metallica concerts to prevent tinnitis.  Maybe I should start taking them to the movies.

-People who talk during the film.  I'm with Shepherd Book on this one.

-Showing all the funny clips in the preview hoping to get butts in seats only to find that there's nothing else funny in the comedy film.  Thanks, I saw the preview, could've skipped the $10 for the movie that's not funny the way the clips were.

-Just about anything where the names Michael Bay or Joel Schumacher appear in the credits.

-"In a world . . . "  This just makes me tired now.

-Obligatory nu-metal chord burst intro for the explosion/action sequence/underwater catastrophe bubble burst/frenzied kiss in a preview or actual film.

-My own "too-high" expectations.  I really, really need to lower them, if I'm going to enjoy the movies.  Don't know if this is just "getting older" disease, or what.



			
				Hijinks said:
			
		

> I go to movies to be entertained . . . I wish directors didn't feel the need to make it more "real."




Fair enough.  I like the realism, when it works for the film.  I go to some movies to be entertained.  I go to others because I'm hoping to see something realistic, or something about a subject I am interested in, and in those cases, I think the versimilitude helps, such as in the first 20 minutes of _Saving Private Ryan_ and the whole of _Blackhawk Down_, in which case I think the camera work helps me realize the craziness (crazier than I could ever imagine, and *still* nowhere near crazy as it really was) of the situation.  I might get enterainment, or something to think about, or a historical period to investigate further, or a particular artistic expression out of those films, too, but part of what I like is the realism.  In the case of those kinds of films, I think the camera work serves the film.  I'm sorry you had to leave _Ryan_ due to illness and that it detracted your experience of the (first 20 minutes of) film (the story that followed definitely deviated from the "realism," for sure).

I think it's just a particular stylistic trend in certain kinds of film expression at the moment.  It probably won't last forever, as other trends come along to replace it, and it will eventually come back, as the trend becomes nostalgic, or filmmakers get tired of the new trends.  I would guess there are many movies out there that don't use that technique.  Heck, maybe you could start the revolution and lobby for, or make, films that don't rely on that technique to tell a story!   

Warrior Poet


----------



## billd91 (Jul 25, 2005)

The grainy, jerky and blurred style of filming in _Saving Pvt Ryan_ was done partly to mimic the impressions given by the photos of Robert Capa. As the story goes, he landed with initial waves on Omaha Beach for D-Day and took about 100 pictures. They were grainy and blury and brillaintly evocative. He rode back out after that initial wave to get the photos developed. Unfortunately, only 11 survived a botched development job by an excited technician who rushed a little too much.
But damn if Spielberg didn't capture that look and feel in the opening fight of SPR!


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jul 25, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The grainy, jerky and blurred style of filming in _Saving Pvt Ryan_ was done partly to mimic the impressions given by the photos of Robert Capa. But damn if Spielberg didn't capture that look and feel in the opening fight of SPR!



Yeah, it was a helluva job, and props to the cinematographers.  The washed out colors, heck, even the weather cooperated (overcast in the morning, but not enough to prevent the landings) for the filming.  Problems with some of the writing/story of the 2nd part of the film notwithstanding, that opening sequence is some of the best fictionalized filmmaking I've seen of the Normandy D-Day beachhead landings.

Even more honors to Capa.  To have survived the initial landing, much less get the photographs, is truly an awesome historical moment.  I can't even imagine.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 26, 2005)

Clapping in a movie.  I hate it with the burning passion of 1000 fiery suns.  Clapping is worse than talking because at least when people talk they are generally whispering.  However, clapping completely overwhelms dialogue and when one monkey starts they all start.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 26, 2005)

I agree about the jerky motion editing. I didn't like it in "Gladiator" (the first film I recall seeing it in) and I don't like it anywhere else. I want to be able to see what's happening! It seems like a cheat to avoid having to really show something. 

The loud music issue is another good one. The music should enhance, not overpower. And on the topic of music, why does every movie have to have a pop music song in the soundtrack? 

I also dislike the trend (although that's really been a trend throughout the history of filmmaking) of casting big-box-office stars in roles they are completely unsuited for. I really don't go to see a film just to see the star, and I doubt that most other people do either. If it looks like something we'd enjoy we'll go to see it no matter who's in it. Look how popular the original Star Wars became with unknowns in the roles; or look at "Batman Begins" - how many average viewers (not ENworld members  ) knew who Christian Bale was? 

Movie trailers that show all the best scenes are also an extreme annoyance to me. Of course, they save me money since I don't need to see the movie.  

And can't the people who prepare the trailers find some other pieces of music besides that ESPosthumous piece, or 'O Fortuna' from Carmina Burana, or stealing the theme from another movie??


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 26, 2005)

Oooooh movie peeves - a favorite subject of my friends and me....

Let me jump on the I hate the jerky camera bandwagon - its invading Television now (check out the scene in BSG where starbuck and whatshisface are sitting talking in her old aprtment, the camera wanders all over the place) - but not in all cases, in some movies I don't even notice, in others, like The Bourne Supremacy, it made me ill.

People being blown back several feet/through things/over things/etc when shot.

Waif-like heroines who are supercombatants beyond all reason in a fight.

The general trend of all male characters being complete and utter boobs while wise and caring women save them from themselves.

Blatant political agendas tucked away in movies that have nothing to do with the story/characters/setting.


----------



## Dakkareth (Jul 26, 2005)

"Jerky camera"? I don't even know what you're talking about ... unless it totally annoys me or is mind-blowingly brilliant I simply don't pay attention to the technical parts, I guess.

*shrug*


----------



## mojo1701 (Jul 26, 2005)

Another vote for the jerky camera. Though, if it works, it works. I never noticed it in LotR, I loved it in SPR, but in almost everywhere else, it doesn't work. Especially if there's a lot of cuts.

Another vote for the "You've seen the trailer, you've seen the movie" movies.

Another one for talking. I can stand it if it's occasional whispering, but not if it's someone making comments throughout the movie, or raucous noises (which is why I think movie theatres should invest in ushers).

Clapping, not so much, if it's warranted.



			
				Elemental said:
			
		

> Almost all romantic comedies that feature any of the following--a precocious kid who's wiser than the adults, the message that women just need to find a sugar daddy rather than invest anything in self-improvement, ditziness being presented as a positive character trait, or the message that stalking people is fine so long as you're destined to be together.




A standing ovation for you on that one. Especially the kid part. I don't know too many kids that would know how to make a good comment like the ones presented in these movies.


----------



## Psionicist (Jul 26, 2005)

I don't mind camera shake / jerky cameras in most movies. However, combined with certain audio and visuals it can be REALLY disturbing (as in enthralling and/or touching, not as in annoying). Good example: The dungeon/club scene in http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/ I don't think it'd be the same without a small shaky and spinning handheld camera.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 26, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> What are your movie pet peeves?




Mine would be, kids being allowed in the movie theater and people talking during the movie, period.  (I know, I know, I’m a jerk but why should I have to play 20 bucks to listen to some guy’s kid ask 25 questions through the first half of the movie.)

Commercials before the movies.   Not previews, mind you, I don't mind previews, but commercials!


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 26, 2005)

Kids in movies they have no reason to be there for.  I was in Mr and Ms Smith and some idiot brought their kids in to see it.  !?!?!?!   Man you gotta be sick to expose your kid to that kinda violence so early on.  I'm no prude, but I think it's wrong for 2-9 year olds to be in there.  

On the front about kids being in other movies and talking though.  If you go to a family movie expecting it to be quiet, your kidding yourself.  It sucks, but in these instances it happens and all you can control is when you see it (hoping that it might be too late for them to bring kids to the theater is one I always go with).  

The jerky camera motion movies for the most part don't bother me at all.  most of the movies I've seen it in have made sense or made you keep your eye on the screen as your trying to keep up.  For those of you who get motion sickness all I can say is see if there's something you can take before the movie that might help.  It's all I can think of.  Sorry it does that to you though.  For me I loved it the most in a movie called Swordfish with the explosion and the 360 camera stop and go thing.  It was a almost a ride for me to watch it.


----------



## David Howery (Jul 26, 2005)

put me down for the 'I hate people who talk during movies' one.  I didn't pay $8 to listen to some moron's opinion on the movie or to hear his girlfriend squeal at the scary parts.  Do you think the jury would let me off if I tasered someone who talked during a movie?  Certainly, nobody likes it...


----------



## Noldor Elf (Jul 26, 2005)

Disappointing trend currently in movies? The style of taking the camera "up and close" during fights, because as a result one can not anymore see what is happening. It is just flashes, blurr and nothing.

Episode III was horrible in that account, lightsabers made the style even worse. Batman Begins had the same problem. First "action" movie ever that I ended up liking the story and dialogue WAY more than the action.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 26, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> Certainly, nobody likes it...




  Not sure if you would be pronounced innocent but I can see a hung jury…


----------



## Arbiter of Wyrms (Jul 26, 2005)

I believe that the super-close-up, herky-jerky camera thing is intended, in part, to render fight choreography unnecessary.  If you can't see the fight, what does it matter what it looks like?

As someone who really enjoys good fight choreography, count me as another vote against the cinematic obsfucation of action.  I didn't like it in _Braveheart_ and I still don't now.  When you've got Cecil B. Demille-ian movie making like braveheart, it's forgivable, but fights with less than 500 hundred people should never use this technique.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 26, 2005)

Although I do think it was used quite effectively and beautifully in LOTR: ROTK.  It was as I had envisioned the battle all those years ago when I first read the book.  Felt correct instead of a set view of the fight.  Makes scenes like those feel more massive and chaotic, which is what I believe it's ultimately supposed to be used for.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jul 26, 2005)

I didn't mind the erratic camera in Private Ryan as it seemed a technique used for a specific effect. I only find it annoying when it is used in movies to cover for actors who can't pull off a fight scene. I don't recall it being a large factor in any of the LoTR movies outside the fight at Amon-Hen (I think that is the right place...the part where Frodo talks to Aragorn and then runs while Aragorn holds off the Uruks until Gimli and Legolas get there) and some of the scenes in the siege of Helm's Deep. Even there it didn't seem too prevalent and I have a feeling it might have been to help compensate for the complexity of the fight scenes (what with all the extras in elaborate costumes). 

I have to agree that the "kids that are wiser than adults" idea is really lame. When I was a kid/teenager I didn't have a hot clue, and whatever wisdom and common sense I have now was gained through experience and _listening to my parents!_

But one of my greatest peeves are people who go to a movie with either completely unrealistic expectations, who utterly miss the point or at some point misunderstood what the movie was about. I remember after the 3rd time watching Fellowship of the Ring in the theatre I overheard a couple of middle-aged ladies stand up and say "That movie was ridiculous. It wasn't what I was expecting at all. It was just nonsense about elves and such!" What the...? Then there was the time I saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for the first time in the theatre, and I was just trying to digest and appreciate the solemn ending, when I heard some moron stand up and say "That movie was so stupid! People can't jump around and run up walls like that!" Did this guy even watch the trailers? Did he know what movie he was going to see?!? Does he go to see Star Wars and say "People can't make light swords!". If someone made him go to see this movie, then they should avoid taking him to anything with more than 10 mins of dialogue and featuring no less than one gratuitous sex scene and massive explosion. Ugh.


----------



## Joker (Jul 26, 2005)

I guess I'm on the few here that actually likes the jerky camera, in movies where it works.  I didn't like it in Gladiator or FotR or Kingdom of Heaven.  I didn't like it in those movies because to me it wasn't so much jerky as frantically-all-over-the-place.

My pet peeve is people who answer when their cell-phone goes off.  Luckily the whole crowd starts yelling when someone does this so the asses are still outnumbered.  I hope.

As for Trailers that show the entire movie, here's one of the few that doesn't.

http://www.gorehoundinc.com/index2.html


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 26, 2005)

I don't see many movies in threaters these days because the closest one is probably 30 miles, and I'm generally broke, but the thing I really hate about a lot of DVDs these days is the volume. The sound effects are like 100x the volume of the dialogue. So I basically have to turn it to down to avoid freaking out the cats, rendering the dialogue unhearable. So I have to turn on subtitles.  (This could be just by TV, but I dunno).

I like O Fortuna. I have like 6-7 different dance versions of it (mostly trance, but a couple techno, and one sort of rap).


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 26, 2005)

Anyway, I hate the use of CGI for no real apparent reason.

For instance, in the recent Exorcist: The Whatever, all the hyenas were CGI. Bad CGI, like the ones you'd see in a SF channel movie about giant animals. (Only they were normal sized, if evil).

I guess it's less trouble using CGI hyenas than real, trained hyenas. But you lose something. 


Another - product placements. I don't mind so much when they are incidental - like people drinking coke, and they always put the can down so the logo is prominently shown (that goes back probably 25 years, since ET at least). But in say, Blade Trinity, it's like they wrote Apple and iPod into the storyline. (The bimbo vampire slayer listend to it while killing vampires. Which is stupid on other levels as well)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 26, 2005)

Another trend that is starting to concern me is the lack of up and coming actions stars.  You have Vin and The Rock but I don't know if I see them on the level of Hanks, Cruse, Stallone, Smith, Arnie...


----------



## S'mon (Jul 26, 2005)

Elemental said:
			
		

> My own pet hates--
> 
> Any fantasy film that has enemies who wear heavy armour....which is utterly useless in stopping any blow from the good guys. As I was watching the LotR trilogy, I was seriously starting to wonder why the evil powers didn't just send the orcs into battle naked rather than invest so much time and effort into making armour--at least then they might have a chance of dodging an attack.




I concur 100% - watching TTT & ROTK last weekend it was very noticeable that the less armour an orc had, the more damage resistant it was!  While plate-armoured orcs were guaranteed to drop dead from a single blow, naked orcs could keep running with seveal arows in them... ?!?!   This was very annoying.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 26, 2005)

Andre said:
			
		

> Another pet peeve: Playing the music so loud, I can't hear the dialogue. I can't count the number of DVD's I play where I have to constantly adjust the sound so I can hear what the actors are saying. Soundtracks are supposed to enhance the experience, not overwhelm it.





			
				trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I don't see many movies in threaters these days because the closest one is probably 30 miles, and I'm generally broke, but the thing I really hate about a lot of DVDs these days is the volume. The sound effects are like 100x the volume of the dialogue. So I basically have to turn it to down to avoid freaking out the cats, rendering the dialogue unhearable. So I have to turn on subtitles. (This could be just by TV, but I dunno).



Either switch the DVD to regular stereo, or invest in a 5.1 audio system.  That's not a problem with the movie, it's a problem with you playing the wrong soundtrack and not getting the right balance between the various sound elements.  Of course, many DVDs don't come with a 2.0 stereo option anymore, but 5.1 digital audio systems for DVD/TV systems have come way down; $100-150 will set you up nicely.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jul 26, 2005)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> People being blown back several feet/through things/over things/etc when shot.
> 
> Waif-like heroines who are supercombatants beyond all reason in a fight.
> 
> The general trend of all male characters being complete and utter boobs while wise and caring women save them from themselves.




Same here.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 26, 2005)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> I believe that the super-close-up, herky-jerky camera thing is intended, in part, to render fight choreography unnecessary.  If you can't see the fight, what does it matter what it looks like?



I agree--I've long felt that the use of that technique usually says that the director isn't interested in fight scenes, and/or has no talent for them.  But heck, that's what 2nd unit directors are for!  And fight choreographers!  And, if necessary, stuntmen!

I _*hate*_ watching a movie that looks like it was filmed by a stoned cameraman who also happens to be in the process of being mauled by a bear while, hey, let's film this scene.  With an all-consuming passion.  It completely ruined _The Bourne Supremacy_ for me, and it is my one big complaint with _Batman Begins_--both movies in which seeing the fight scenes would have enhanced the movie and been much more true to genre.


----------



## Qlippoth (Jul 26, 2005)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> But one of my greatest peeves are people who go to a movie with either completely unrealistic expectations, who utterly miss the point or at some point misunderstood what the movie was about.



A couple of years ago, some friends and I went to see _Shall We Dance?_ (the Japanese original, not the pointless American remake) at the local second-run theater. The theater's lobby had several posters, almost entirely in Japanese (with a handful of obvious English translations). Not five minutes into the movie (Japanese with English subtitles), the two women in the row in front of me turned around and asked, "Is this whole thing not in English?" 

I honestly thought they were kidding--but said, "No, it's a Japanese movie."

At which point they both harrumphed and left!


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 26, 2005)

I am with the others who don't like jerky camera movemnets. I get sick to my stomach watching them. 

I also hate "dark" movies not the content but the mood lighting.  You spent 80 million to make it and you can't afford to buy light bulbs.  

I hate the trend to cast waifish females in fighter rolls and I really hate when they cast an over 40 male and the lead female is 19.

I am sick of nudity and cheesecake shots in some films. I am not a prude and I don't mind it if it is content but just to sell sex to make the movie appeal to little boys bugs me. 

I also hate people who can't get their bottom planted in their seat before the previews start. That way they are settled before the movie starts. And why does the person with the tiny bladder have to sit in the middle of the row.

Talkers, cell phones and crying babies are also annoying.

And someone else said bringing children to certain films. I was horrified when I saw Basic Insrinct and some morons brought there under 8 daughters to the film.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 26, 2005)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> As someone who really enjoys good fight choreography, count me as another vote against the cinematic obsfucation of action.



Yep, this is the biggest for me - _especially_ in martial arts movies, when it drives me almost insane (one of the local newspaper reviewers calls it the "death of a thousand cuts" when she criticizes such movies).

Many of the other things listed here are also minor peeves of mine.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 26, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Yep, this is the biggest for me - _especially_ in martial arts movies, when it drives me almost insane (one of the local newspaper reviewers calls it the "death of a thousand cuts" when she criticizes such movies).
> 
> Many of the other things listed here are also minor peeves of mine.




I think this maybe overcompensation, too much, too long, too much wire-fu, so now you have this.  :\


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 26, 2005)

May I add the folks that

* chew popcorn with their mouths open.  It's a small kernel.  You can put it in your mouth, then close your mouth, then chew.  Do you really not know how LOUD that is to the person sitting behind you?

* Slurp their soda when there's nothing left but a few drops and ice.  See above about loudness.

* Open their cell phones/PDA's/whatevers just to see what time it is.  It's very bright in a dark theater.  Buy a watch.

I admit I'm guilty of talking.  But I'm trying to work on it.

I was overseas in 92-93.  I came back and _Jurassic Park_ was at the dollar theater.  I hadn't been able to see any recent movies while overseas so I went to see it.  Unfortunately, there were 4 teenagers right behind me who kept saying things like "Oh this is the part where the raptor eats the guy..."  Erm.  Thanks.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 26, 2005)

Qlippoth said:
			
		

> A couple of years ago, some friends and I went to see _Shall We Dance?_ (the Japanese original, not the pointless American remake) at the local second-run theater.



I saw--and relatively enjoyed--the American remake.  I've never even heard of the Japanese version.

Doesn't sound pointless to me.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jul 26, 2005)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> Kids in movies they have no reason to be there for.  I was in Mr and Ms Smith and some idiot brought their kids in to see it.  !?!?!?!   Man you gotta be sick to expose your kid to that kinda violence so early on.  I'm no prude, but I think it's wrong for 2-9 year olds to be in there.




A buddy of mine saw _The Devil's Rejects_ and saw so-called "parents"  with kids in there.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 26, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I concur 100% - watching TTT & ROTK last weekend it was very noticeable that the less armour an orc had, the more damage resistant it was!  While plate-armoured orcs were guaranteed to drop dead from a single blow, naked orcs could keep running with seveal arows in them... ?!?!   This was very annoying.





Well DUH! The naked orc with the arrows in him was a higher level...


----------



## Zander (Jul 26, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Either switch the DVD to regular stereo, or invest in a 5.1 audio system. That's not a problem with the movie, it's a problem with you playing the wrong soundtrack and not getting the right balance between the various sound elements. Of course, many DVDs don't come with a 2.0 stereo option anymore, but 5.1 digital audio systems for DVD/TV systems have come way down; $100-150 will set you up nicely.



I've got a Toshiba DVD player and it has three sound modes one of which is dialogue. This eliminates almost all cases of the soundtrack overwhelming the speech. On the rare occasions when it's not enough, I check the subtitles.


----------



## Zander (Jul 26, 2005)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Oooooh movie peeves...
> 
> Waif-like heroines who are supercombatants beyond all reason in a fight.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more. However, as politics are taboo on these boards, I won't expand.

I will say that I belong to the HSFC (Hate Shaky Filming Club). It completely ruined the fight against the cave troll in FotR.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 26, 2005)

One thing that has been a pet peeve for a long time is the "When the monster should have been absolutely positively killed for the last time, it will get up once more to menace the heroes". A related peeve is the "OH MY GOD! THE MONSTER ISN"T DEAD!" shot that they seem obligated to include at the end of pretty much all horror movies.


----------



## niolo (Jul 26, 2005)

The jerky camera in Bourne Supremacy.

Talking people in the audience/Phone rings "Oh hi...yeah I am at the movies...nuthin...sure"

People who bring youngins to a movie the youngins shouldn't be seeing. A couple brought 3 kids that looked no older than 8 into Sin City. I really thought that was truly a crime.

Kids wiser than their years in movies. UGH!

Cheap scare tactics. I hate it when all is quiet and very intense and then the lame skreetching owl or scared cat dashes across the screen. Fricking LAME cliche.

A sub-gripe would be all the action cliche endings: good guy beat up real bad and exhausted then somehow recovers but bad guy is now totally exhausted; the bad-guy-is-dead-no-he-isn't switcheroo; and related to that the "oh I am so tired from beating up the bad guy and I know he's not dead, but I really must sit down WITH MY BACK TO HIM because I am dog tired." 

Subtitles that are the same color as the background so I can't read them.


----------



## Finster (Jul 26, 2005)

I have to chime in with the in-too-close, jerky, frenetic camera movement. I thought that the first 15 minutes of RotS were exciting, but afterwards I couldn't tell you what happened. Too much, too fast...brain hurt. Maybe I'm just too old for new movies, but I need at least a nanosecond to assimilate what I just saw before moving on.

Other than that, my biggest movie pet peeve is people running away from explosions. Explosions are FAST, that's why they are deadly. If this was possible, all a demolition tech would need is a good pair of sneakers. I once saw a movie where a guy rode a motorcycle away from a nuclear detonation.   I can't suspend disbelief when I see this, sorry.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 26, 2005)

Finster said:
			
		

> Other than that, my biggest movie pet peeve is people running away from explosions. Explosions are FAST, that's why they are deadly. If this was possible, all a demolition tech would need is a good pair of sneakers. I once saw a movie where a guy rode a motorcycle away from a nuclear detonation.   I can't suspend disbelief when I see this, sorry.



That's nothing on O'Connell outrunning the sunrise in _The Mummy Returns_.  To pull off that feat, he had to have been running faster than the speed of rotation of the earth, which means he was hoofing it at over 1000 miles per hour.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 26, 2005)

Qlippoth said:
			
		

> A couple of years ago, some friends and I went to see _Shall We Dance?_ (the Japanese original, not the pointless American remake) at the local second-run theater. The theater's lobby had several posters, almost entirely in Japanese (with a handful of obvious English translations). Not five minutes into the movie (Japanese with English subtitles), the two women in the row in front of me turned around and asked, "Is this whole thing not in English?"
> 
> I honestly thought they were kidding--but said, "No, it's a Japanese movie."
> 
> At which point they both harrumphed and left!




I ran into the same thing the second time I saw "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon". A large family in the back caught my attention with their disgruntled muttering when the subtitles began. I don't recall if they left - I was too involved in the movie to notice - but I'm pretty sure they were muttering about having to read. I got the impression it wasn't a skill they were good at, and they had a 4-year-old kid with them too.

And how about people who leave before the movie is over? When I saw "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", a couple with a little girl of about 4 sat down the aisle from us. They never made their child sit down throughout the entire film, and then they left when there was still half an hour to go!! What a waste of money for them.

I personally dislike people who stand up when the film is over and then just continue to stand in the aisle. I like to watch the credits and they're blocking my view.


----------



## Taren Seeker (Jul 26, 2005)

Tacked on love interests. You know I do believe women are capable of seeing fllms that do NOT include a useless love interest. I'm looking at you Batman Begins and Pearl Harbour...and too many others to actually pick out examples.

Ditto on Shaky cam. I like it for some scenes, but it's getting ridden into the ground.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 26, 2005)

The shaky cam works sometimes and doesn't others.  It was used well in Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan, but not so well in Batman Begins or Gladiator.  In the new BSG show it is non-stop and that detracts from the show at times.

The tacked on love interest stuff is another annoyance.  It lowered my enjoyment of the LotR series a bit, especially in the last two movies.   The Arwynization of those two was unnecessary IMO and took up time that would have been better spent on story elements that were cut.


----------



## Demmero (Jul 26, 2005)

One of my pet peeves is when something unintelligent eats something (or someone) and then gives the obligatory burp.  It's almost as bad as the jumping cats in horror flicks.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jul 26, 2005)

Reamakes, whether they are crappy old movies or crappy old TV shows why do they need to be remade.  Dukes of Hazard wasn't that great of show why does it need a movie.  Whats the point of remaking The Bad News Bears.

Prequels, these never jive up with the originals they are trying to enhance.

 Loud music over the movie.  It used to be this was in the background now its like watching a music video.  Also whenever a band comes on the screen the music is played over the movie also.

I am tired of cars exploding when ever they hit a speedbump or getting shot with a .22.

Totally out of place actors or actresses.  I'm looking at you Jessica Biel (not a bad sight) and the movie Stealth.


----------



## Numion (Jul 26, 2005)

Qlippoth said:
			
		

> A couple of years ago, some friends and I went to see _Shall We Dance?_ (the Japanese original, not the pointless American remake) at the local second-run theater. The theater's lobby had several posters, almost entirely in Japanese (with a handful of obvious English translations). Not five minutes into the movie (Japanese with English subtitles), the two women in the row in front of me turned around and asked, "Is this whole thing not in English?"
> 
> I honestly thought they were kidding--but said, "No, it's a Japanese movie."
> 
> At which point they both harrumphed and left!




In light of those events, was the american remake really pointless? 

As for the jerky movement: there is good jerky movement and bad jerky movement. Saving Ryan had good jerky movement. Batman Begin had some of the worst. The first fight in the prison was absolute crap. Couldn't tell what happened, and it was in broad daylight. 

And yeah, the unnecessary dark lighting is also annoying. Before good fx it was needed to cover the shoddy work, but nowadays the effects can be good enough to be shown in broad daylight.


----------



## Elemental (Jul 26, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> One thing that has been a pet peeve for a long time is the "When the monster should have been absolutely positively killed for the last time, it will get up once more to menace the heroes". A related peeve is the "OH MY GOD! THE MONSTER ISN"T DEAD!" shot that they seem obligated to include at the end of pretty much all horror movies.




In the same vein, any cliche about serial killers. If you believe Hollywood, they all have genius intellect, the ability to psionically predict the movements of the police and their next victims, short range teleportation, immunity to pain and a secondary heart that starts up ten seconds after the first one stops.

Just once, it'd be nice to see the killer menace the scantily clad blonde teenage girl...and to have her either shoot or kick the living daylights out of him (indeed, Joss Whedeon cited the same feeling as one of the factors leading to _Buffy_).


----------



## Numion (Jul 26, 2005)

Finster said:
			
		

> Other than that, my biggest movie pet peeve is people running away from explosions. Explosions are FAST, that's why they are deadly. If this was possible, all a demolition tech would need is a good pair of sneakers. I once saw a movie where a guy rode a motorcycle away from a nuclear detonation.   I can't suspend disbelief when I see this, sorry.




Are you also annoyed that movie explosions are done with slow explosives, while in reality most military explosives are fast? Those huge gasoline explosions are cinematic, and real explosions would be impossible to capture well on camera, or they would look like crap. But I get your peeve.

Another peeve just game to mind - inconsistent effects in (especially) war movies. Wind talkers was the worst. Sometimes grenades made small puffs, then grenades of the same side made huge gasoline explosions. Another one is that the good side throws a grenade, it always explodes immediately. The other side hasn't been in basic training, and always throw too early, giving the good side time to throw them back.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 26, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Are you also annoyed that movie explosions are done with slow explosives, while in reality most military explosives are fast? Those huge gasoline explosions are cinematic, and real explosions would be impossible to capture well on camera, or they would look like crap. But I get your peeve.




Good point, Numion. Real-world physics wouldn't be much fun to watch. For instance, Superman wouldn't be able to lift a tanker unless his butt was made of lead.  

The same thing is true about the serial killer movies Elemental mentions. It annoys me, too, that movie serial killers are always ten steps ahead of the police. But a movie about most real serial killers would be boring.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 27, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> Good point, Numion. Real-world physics wouldn't be much fun to watch. For instance, Superman wouldn't be able to lift a tanker unless his butt was made of lead.
> 
> The same thing is true about the serial killer movies Elemental mentions. It annoys me, too, that movie serial killers are always ten steps ahead of the police. But a movie about most real serial killers would be boring.




I agree, as we all have seen before, real world munitions aren't really entertaining.  Anyone remember "Shock and Awe"?  Yeah, boring as hell even though the Pentagon boys talked it up to be a spectacle.  I for one am glad most movies aren't "realistic".  I live the real life, I see it every day on TV news.  Why the hell yould I want my entertainment (along with my 8-10 bucks I shell out) to reflect that?  

As for what Elemental says, yeah all the movie villians (mostly serial killers) have an intellect beyond most of the good guys understanding, but would you rather watch a movie where they catch the guy in the first 10 minutes and you get to watch and hour and a half of credits?  Or would you rather see the good guys earn their keep and catch that insidious bad guy who gives you every reason to cheer for said good guys and dislike (maybe even hate if you want to invest that much emtion into it) him vehemently?  Stupid villains die quick and boring deaths.  

Actually, the recent trend in movies these days is for the rough and tumble bad-ass good girl, BTW.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 27, 2005)

Really, the only thing that bothers me are little kids when its obvious they're only there because the parents wanted to see the movie. I don't ever blame the kids, though, as it isn't the 3 year old's fault they can't sit still/quiet for two(or even just one) hour.

Other than that, though, not much bothers me. Jerky cameras, slow explosions, etc are all stylistic things that I've never really had a problem with, even in the movies that many of you say they were done badly(I enjoyed the Batman Begins and Bourne Supremecy fights). But that really is all a matter of style, and something you can be warned about ahead of time if you don't like it...parents with young kids that can't be quiet, though? Nope, no way to avoid that, it seems.


----------



## Merlion (Jul 27, 2005)

Hmmm well as far as the jerky camera thing, I have noticed and been annoyed by that from time to time, but I couldnt really cite examples...and some times it seems to be ok.


I seem to be at odds with most here as far as the portrayl of children in movies. In my experience children in movies are almost always portrayed as being spoiled, bratty, whiny, obnoxious, selfish and stupid and this annoys me a great deal as it is inaccurate. Its frequently been my experience that some kids are better behaved and more sensible than many "adults". 

 as a gay male, I find it annoying that movies will include nudity of one degree or other and/or other forms of erotic scenes involving young women to appeal to middle aged straight men and straight teenage boys, but for some reason its unacceptable to include similar scenes with young males to appeal to gay guys (or those straight women who find such visual...stimulas...appealing)


The general tendency of western cinema to avoid any sort of mystery, or misdirection or to leave anything unexplained and instead spoon feed the (often inconsistant) details to the audience to be sure they know exactly what is happening at all times (the fact that it does not do that is one of the reasons I love Anime so much). This issue of course tends to come up especially frequently in fantasy/horror/sci fi


Tacked on love interests are very tiring (especially in LOTR)

All the various male and female sterotypes, if not used in some meaningful context, are very annoying.

Again from a gay male perspective the almost total lack of deccent gay characters or storylines, especially in the F/SF/H genre is very irritating.


There are others but thats what springs to mind at present.


----------



## Psionicist (Jul 27, 2005)

I have a suggestion for you all of you: Watch some foreign movies. You are constantly mentioning Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, Pearl Harbor, Batman Begins etc. No wonder you get tired of the same old, these are all hollywood movies! Not exactly known for innovation there.

A few newer ones with rave reviews:

Mar adentro, various: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0369702/
La Meglio gioventù, Italy: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0346336/
Diarios de motocicletea, various: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0318462/
Ong bak: Thailand: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0368909/
The Last Casino: Canada (!): http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0419909/
Elling: Norway: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0279064/
Millions: UK: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0366777/
Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo: Korea, http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0386064/


----------



## Merlion (Jul 27, 2005)

Trouble is 1) I dont like subtitles 2) I dont usualy care for non genre movies.


But I get what your saying. Thats why I watch (dubbed) Anime.


----------



## Joker (Jul 27, 2005)

Ong Bak is awesome.  I really like martial arts movies where I feel that the fighters are in real danger.  Is that sadistic?  Maybe.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jul 27, 2005)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I seem to be at odds with most here as far as the portrayl of children in movies. In my experience children in movies are almost always portrayed as being spoiled, bratty, whiny, obnoxious, selfish and stupid and this annoys me a great deal as it is inaccurate. Its frequently been my experience that some kids are better behaved and more sensible than many "adults".




Well I think we are all right to an extent. I think that Hollywood tends to (generally) portray children as either rude, obnoxious idiots or posessing wisdom exceeding most adults. I think the reality of children is missed alltogether. Children's minds are sponges. They have a capacity to absorb a great amount of information. They also tend to see the world minus the pretentions manufactured by adults and have no compunctions about speaking the truth as they see it. However, they lack the deductive reasoning and basic life experience to make sound responsible decisions. Off the top of my head, I'd say some examples of movies where children are portrayed fairly accurately are _The Sixth Sense_, _Jerry MacGuire_, _Finding Nemo_ (albeit a fish child) and _13_ (although that is a more extreme case). 



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> ... as a gay male, I find it annoying that movies will include nudity of one degree or other and/or other forms of erotic scenes involving young women to appeal to middle aged straight men and straight teenage boys, but for some reason its unacceptable to include similar scenes with young males to appeal to gay guys (or those straight women who find such visual...stimulas...appealing)




Obviously you haven't seen _Troy_.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 27, 2005)

Shaky cam - it works in only a few movies.  In some it's actually a PREFERRABLE style - depending on what the film is attempting to achieve or demonstrate.  Be sure to differentiate between hand-held camera work and fast-cut.  Example - The Blair Witch Project is possibly where it really started to become overused.  It worked in BWP because it was supposed to BE hand-held camera work and although the movie itself got rather tedious and forced it was a GOOD decision to stick to the live-documentary-footage style.

Fast-cut action - I HATE IT WITH A BURNING SOUL-CONSUMING PASSION.  As others have noted it really does seem that it's used only to eliminate the need to actually choreograph fight scenes.  I imagine that filmmakers convince themselves that it's an effective technique to convey a sense of excitement and fast-movement.  It might have been true if used sparingly but it's used so indiscriminately, pointlessly, and excessively that it never had a chance to actually be a viable technique.  It's this technique rather than hand-held camera work that gives me a headache.

Distortion and motion blur - another related technique, often used with hand-held cameras and fast cuts.  It's that technique that tends to imply phychadelic drugs, severe mental confusion, etc. that consists of fast pans, vibration, and blurred or washed/altered colors.  In a movie like Man on Fire it works (even if still overused) because it does effectively communicate some of the mental state of the main character.  But it, too, is a technique that is used excessively and without regard for actually achieving a particular, meaningful effect.

Villains or ANYONE/ANYTHING that suddenly gets up again for a final "scare" when it's supposed to be dead is EXECESSIVELY pathetic filmmaking and I give really severe demerits to any film that tries it.

Hero's leaps - you know those amazing, Carl-Lewis-wannabe, slo-motion, amazing leaps from one building to another, one cliff to another or across any gap that is obviously a realistic impossibility.  Often done in conjuction with "outrunning the explosion".

Outrunning the Explosion - in slow-motion apparantly people can actually move faster than even nuclear-detonation thermodynamic reactions.  Again, rampant over-use has now rendered it a pathetic device that we simply have to put up with.  No filmmaker is now going to show you the hero crashing out a window and falling into the water below and THEN having the window explode outward in a ball of flame.  No, the expanding fireball must nip at the heels of the escaping hero, or even close rapidly upon him, all the way down the corridor, through the shattering window and then finally whoosh just over his head as his ballistic downward arc puts him below the windowsill - and the flame will expand up and out but never down.  Somewhere back in time the movie industry simply decided that gasoline flames are the ONLY suitable form of explosion for film.  Every car that goes over a cliff explodes ON THE WAY DOWN in a ball of flame although it's just been through a 15 minute chase with grenades and .50cal with minimal damage.  The only movie in recent memory that seemed to go out of its way to demonstrate otherwise was Blackhawk Down.  Gasoline explosions may be "cinematic" but not every explosion needs to be "cinematic".

Hero-pull.  This is where the male character will PULL the female character through the entire foot-chase by the hand regardless of how capable the female is or how INcapable the male is.

Bottomless clips.  Nuff said.

Shrugging off wounds that should stop a rhino.  My favorite example of this is Starship Troopers when Denise Richards character Carmen gets a bug leg the size of a 4x4 through the upper chest but is perfectly capable of standing up and running out of the cave (ahead of the nuclear detonation fireball it should be noted) and indeed only a few minutes later, after many minutes of casual conversation with others walks away with a smile on her face and each of her arms around the shoulders of friends.  But usually it's a slightly less eggregious display, such as just a bullet in the leg of a hero who manages to only limp a little for the remainder of the movie or chase without, like, incapacitating pain or blood loss.  Still irks me though that only the bad guys ever go down with one shot in the arm

The problem with kids parts in movies is that the kids aren't KIDS.  They are either wise beyond their years, foul-mouthed smart-asses, more knowledgable and better behaved than adults, or the like.  Never just kids whose only real concerns are who gets chosen for kickball at recess or which Transformer is cooler and whose influence on the doings of adults should be much less relevant to most stories.

As for children in the audience at inappropriate movies - "R" in the American ratings system means, "Noone under 17 UNLESS accompanied by parent or guardien".  It's an NC-17 rating that means "Noone 17 or younger PERIOD."  The blame therefore is twofold.  It lies with lazy, stupid adults whose pathetic parentings skills aren't really your business to call into question at a movie (unfortunately), but also with a pathetic, meaningless, ratings system that doesn't even adequately communicate superficial content like levels of violence and sexuality, much less the VASTLY MORE IMPORTANT underlying messages being communicated to children through that content.

No damn endings.  In the last year or two it seems that screenwriters have completely lost the ability to write a proper END to a movie.  Too many of them just suddenly seem to be OVER without a proper denouement or resolution.  The writing in general is getting quite bad.  Lots of lazy writers and too many execs looking to bust blocks rather than simply provide adequate entertainment.  When you set out to make a blockbuster you're now almost certain to FAIL quite spectacularly and be left to wonder how simple little entertaining movies are time and again the ones that audiences end up flocking to as they stay away from "tentpoles" in droves.  But I've seen a genuine trend develop where for whatever reasons there have been way too many movies that the filmmakers can't bring to a resolution.

Talkers in the audience and other inconsiderate behavior.  I've got a friend who has a REALLY bad habit of talking out loud in the movies.  It annoys the hell out of me sometimes and he's my friend - he must drive everyone else around us freakin' nuts.  The odd thing is that noone ever tells him to pipe down.  Cell phones are becoming nearly ubiquitous and people have yet to get it through their thick skulls that they need to be considerate about when and where they use them as well as turning the damned things OFF.  Those little PSA's that some theater chains include in the trailers WORK.  When people see "Mr. Inconsiderate Cell Phone Man!" up there again I see LOTS of people leaning over, pulling out their phones and turning them off or silencing the ringer.  I know _I_ do.  Just a couple days ago I had JUST gotten a new phone, forgotten to silence it before the movie started, and then had someone call me repeatedly.  So there I am in the dark trying to find where the volume settings are (different than my old phone) and finally shutting it off entirely, cringing as it dingles and chimes it's way through the power-down procedure.  If _I'd_ been sitting behind me I'd have been pretty annoyed.

Oh, and the theatre I go to has this one screen out of the 12 it has that I seem to keep getting stuck with.  It has a blown speaker or something like that in front and they haven't gotten it fixed/replaced for several weeks now.  At certain points in movies it can become very distracting as it screws up the dialogue volume/tone.  Had a theater near me a couple years ago when I was still living in the Seattle area.  Dead of winter and they have their AC turned down to like 60 and the fans blowing constantly.  Complained repeatedly about that one too for weeks and they blew me off every time.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 27, 2005)

Merlion said:
			
		

> as a gay male, I find it annoying that movies will include nudity of one degree or other and/or other forms of erotic scenes involving young women to appeal to middle aged straight men and straight teenage boys, but for some reason its unacceptable to include similar scenes with young males to appeal to gay guys (or those straight women who find such visual...stimulas...appealing)



Troy
Starship Troopers
It happens.  But a movie that panders to a gay voyeurism crowd is committing commercial suicide, IMO.  The market that enjoys that isn't big enough, and the market that is offended by it is very large.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 27, 2005)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Outrunning the Explosion - in slow-motion apparantly people can actually move faster than even nuclear-detonation thermodynamic reactions.  Again, rampant over-use has now rendered it a pathetic device that we simply have to put up with.  No filmmaker is now going to show you the hero crashing out a window and falling into the water below and THEN having the window explode outward in a ball of flame.  No, the expanding fireball must nip at the heels of the escaping hero, or even close rapidly upon him, all the way down the corridor, through the shattering window and then finally whoosh just over his head as his ballistic downward arc puts him below the windowsill - and the flame will expand up and out but never down.  Somewhere back in time the movie industry simply decided that gasoline flames are the ONLY suitable form of explosion for film.  Every car that goes over a cliff explodes ON THE WAY DOWN in a ball of flame although it's just been through a 15 minute chase with grenades and .50cal with minimal damage.  The only movie in recent memory that seemed to go out of its way to demonstrate otherwise was Blackhawk Down.  Gasoline explosions may be "cinematic" but not every explosion needs to be "cinematic".



And yet...

the filming technique used to create those scenes is usually...get this...a real stuntman outrunning a real explosion.

So for everyone who claims it's "impossible" and "unrealistic"...

Please be quiet now.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 27, 2005)

> Bottomless clips. Nuff said.




*looks really confused*

Um, ok, anyway about kids in films.  Typically, the reason they are in the film is their family or friends or whatnot is/are going through something extraordinary.  They don't make movies about a mom taking her kids to soccer practice.  If they did, then the kids would typically be behaving like normal kids.  But when you have kids whose father has just been murdered and a Navy SEAL has to be their bodyguard (for example), yeah they're not going to act like normal kids.  I can accept this, and if I don't want to see kids in a movie, I usually don't go to see said movie.  Kids in movies are usually traumatized and/or had something abnormal happen to them to make them behave abnormally.  I can think of a few exceptions - in _Jerry Maguire_ the kid had a normal mom, pretty much, but he seemed pretty normal (if a little precocious) to me.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 27, 2005)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> As for children in the audience at inappropriate movies - "R" in the American ratings system means, "Noone under 17 UNLESS accompanied by parent or guardien". It's an NC-17 rating that means "Noone 17 or younger PERIOD." The blame therefore is twofold. It lies with lazy, stupid adults whose pathetic parentings skills aren't really your business to call into question at a movie (unfortunately), but also with a pathetic, meaningless, ratings system that doesn't even adequately communicate superficial content like levels of violence and sexuality, much less the VASTLY MORE IMPORTANT underlying messages being communicated to children through that content.




Have a bad experience at the movies lately, Funny Hat?  

Actually, I think some of the blame here should lie with the theatres that don't enforce the ratings. How many times have any of us been asked for ID when enterting a theatre? The staff just take your money and hand you a ticket.  They don't ask if you're old enough to be escorting that minor into the theatre, and they don't refuse to admit people with children to from NC-17 movies. The rating system is meaningless if no one applies it.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 27, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> How many times have any of us been asked for ID when enterting a theatre?



It's been quite a while since I looked like I might be anywhere near 17 years old.  If a theatre employee asked to see my ID when buying a ticket to a rated R movie, it'd be insulting.

But I agree with Funny Hat that the ratings system isn't really particularly useful.  In my ideal world, movies would be given ratings that specifically flagged type of content rather than just broad "good" and "bad" ratings.  Heck, in the ideal world, movies wouldn't be rated at all; they'd just release content breakdowns ala screenit.com.  And everybody'd actually use those breakdowns, at least before seeing movies with their kids if not themselves.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 27, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It's been quite a while since I looked like I might be anywhere near 17 years old. If a theatre employee asked to see my ID when buying a ticket to a rated R movie, it'd be insulting.




But what does a 17 year old look like? Some of them look like they're 14, and some look like they're 21. It's hard to judge. People tell me all the time I don't look 45, and I don't think they're just being nice. In my ideal world they'd ask everyone for ID, the same as liquor stores ought to do, or convenience stores selling cigarettes. I don't mind being asked if everyone else is being asked also.

I agree, though, that the rating system isn't very effective. What constitutes violence? What constitutes sexual content? Whose opinion are these ratings based on?


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 27, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Talkers, cell phones and crying babies are also annoying.




It's comforting to know they have their own special Hell.



> And someone else said bringing children to certain films. I was horrified when I saw Basic Insrinct and some morons brought there under 8 daughters to the film.




We went to see _Wrong Turn_, a movie where one of the _nice_ things that happen to people is being chopped up for the evening meal while still alive. These two women come in with five small kids. Like, 5-7 years old. Now, we might have understood this if the women were very young, but they were in their thirties or early forties. We just kind of stared at them, and discussed among ourselves what to do. Did they wander into the wrong theater? Did they not see the previews? But no, we can hear them takling and it's obvious that they know exactly what they're here to see. Now, I'm pretty much an advocate of removing any ratings system and letting whoever has cash in hand see whatever they want, but man...


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 27, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> I have a suggestion for you all of you: Watch some foreign movies. You are constantly mentioning Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, Pearl Harbor, Batman Begins etc. No wonder you get tired of the same old, these are all hollywood movies! Not exactly known for innovation there.




Lucky that apparently you live within a couple hundred _miles_ of a theater that will show those things. If it wasn't for the 'net I'd never even know those movies existed; heck, I'd never know about the _dozens_ of _US-made_ films put out every year that we never see because they are all in limited release in the major metropolitan markets. If it wasn't for Netflix I'd never have seen many of those films. 

Before I got that, we had to drive over 150 miles to Atlanta go see _Princess Mononoke_. Our only other option is a one-screen art theater that shows four films a month. They have managed to score some successes, like getting 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' when it was in indie release or (because one of the gamers in town works for the theater) we get some recent anime (like Steamboy), but usually they don't have anything I'd care to see.

You can't break out of the 'same old same old' when all that is available to you _is_ the top ten Hollywood movies. Thank goodness for the Net.


----------



## Merlion (Jul 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Troy
> Starship Troopers
> It happens.  But a movie that panders to a gay voyeurism crowd is committing commercial suicide, IMO.  The market that enjoys that isn't big enough, and the market that is offended by it is very large.






I dont think I was being fully clear. I just mentioned the part of the simple fact that it annoys me.

I dont think the reasons for it have much to do with gay/straight. I think its simply that female nudity in movies is accepted and male nudity is not. And both those things are linked to the fact that females are more or less conditioned not to respond to that kind of thing...or to admit it or act on it if they do. 


I just think its funny...considering that theres hefty numbers of people who find any sort of nudity offensive (admitedly predominately women although again a lot of that is conditioning) and to them nudity is nudity...but for some reason filmakers will do it with women but not men.


I guess in some ways I find it more interesting than really being a pet peeve.


However the part about total lack of deccent gay characters is still just annoying.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 28, 2005)

My hate of shaky-cam fight scenes know no limit.

I was very disappointed when I saw this filming technique used in Batman Begins, and agree with those who think it's a cheap trick used by directors who don't know or don't care about filming a good fight scene.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 28, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> My hate of shaky-cam fight scenes know no limit.
> 
> I was very disappointed when I saw this filming technique used in Batman Begins, and agree with those who think it's a cheap trick used by directors who don't know or don't care about filming a good fight scene.




I suspect that the shaky-cam in Batman Begins was to help cover up the fact that Liam Neeson can't do the fighting. 

Personally I though the all time worst fight choirography/cinematography was "Brotherhood of the Wolf".


----------



## MacMathan (Jul 28, 2005)

I have to agree about kids in inappropriate movies or just misparented/loud kids in movies in general. For me it is often worth the drive to make it to one of the ArcLight Theatres 21+ showings of a film just for that reason.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's nothing on O'Connell outrunning the sunrise in _The Mummy Returns_.  To pull off that feat, he had to have been running faster than the speed of rotation of the earth, which means he was hoofing it at over 1000 miles per hour.



It may be because I really like this movie and watch it whenever it comes on TV, but I have to point out that O'Connell doesn't outrun the sunrise in _The Mummy Returns_.  The sunrise is clearly faster than he's running.  What he does do is _beat_ the sunrise to the temple, thereby preventing his son from being killed by the magic bracelet.  But the sunrise had much more distance to travel, and still almost overcame him by the time he dove into the temple entrance.







			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> as a gay male, I find it annoying that movies will include nudity of one degree or other and/or other forms of erotic scenes involving young women to appeal to middle aged straight men and straight teenage boys, but for some reason its unacceptable to include similar scenes with young males to appeal to gay guys (or those straight women who find such visual...stimulas...appealing)



Merlion, I'm a straight guy.  I don't have a problem with homosexuality politically or socially.  But--and I hope this doesn't offend you, but it's the truth--watching a gay sexual scene would disgust me.  (Perhaps watching a straight sexual scene provokes the same sensation in you?)  I would walk out of a movie that had a gay sex scene in it.  I wouldn't watch the movie in the first place if I knew there was one in there to begin with.

It's my guess that this is why you don't see this sort of thing in more movies.  Unfortunately, the majority of the viewing populace simply doesn't want to see it.

As to why lesbians seem to be more acceptable, well, straight folks don't have the same visceral reaction to a lesbian scene.  It's not fair, but it's true.

Regarding "shaky cam" I don't mind it.  In fact, I'll go on the record as saying I _liked_ it in _Batman Begins_.  Batman's fights seemed sudden, brutal, and unexpected.  They didn't feel like the well-choreographed scenes of _Blade_.  But they did feel _dangerous_.  It added a lot to the mood for me.

Edit to add:  And my own pet peeve, though you don't see it much anymore unless you're renting old Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van Damme movies, is when they edit in the same fight footage into the same sequence.  So you'll see the exact same footage of the exact same punch several times in the same "fight."  Even worse when they repeat the punch three times in quick succession to simulate three quick punches, instead of getting the guy to actually punch three times.


----------



## Orius (Jul 28, 2005)

I'm not going to go into annoying stuff like ratings-challenged parents, people who talk too much, or cell phones here, because that's really an audience thing and not a problem with filmmaking itself.

I'm with the shaky/sped up camera stuff.  I like to be able to see what's going on in the movie, and these "techniques" interfere with that.  It's bad enough when a filmmaker puts it in because everone else is doing it; just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean it's good.  If it's done to cover for a lack of acting/directorial talent, it's even worse.  Cast people who can act, who can do the fight choreography, and get directors who know what they're doing.  Hell, you might even save money on your budget because you're hiring a relatively talented unknown who will improve the movie rather than some overpriced big name.

Actors who are cast because they're famous and their presence is to draw in their fans, but who don't fit in the role, or who simply have no acting ability yet inexplicably have a career as a big name screen actor.   But this is hardly a recent trend, as Hollywood has pretty much always done this. 

Women who are smart and always right, and men who are morons, except for the geeks who can't get laid or gay men.  Same thing goes for children who are either prodegies or have gutter mouths.

Chick films of any kind.  Can't stand 'em. 

Gratuitous material with no redeeming artistic value.  This isn't just the gratuitous sex scenes, it's also needless violence, swearing, drug/alcohol use, and so on.  It's not that I object to any of that, but it's rather a matter of context.  I don't like pointless stuff that's thrown in there for simple shock value or the like and then defended as "freedom of speech/artistic expresion" when people object.

I'm probably going to get blasted as being insensitive for this, but the line, "No parent should ever have to bury a child."  I'm not trying to be insensitive to the sorrow one feel's when his kid dies, but every character with a dead kid utters a variation this line eventually   It's been used so much in movies and television that to me it's become a cliche that's lost all its poignancy.


----------



## Logan (Jul 28, 2005)

Sign me up for the "We hat shakey cam" club.   I watch action movies for the action, and I like to see whats going on.  I do think a lot of the shakey cam is used to cover up the inabilty of the actors to prefrom the fight scens.  Makes me miss the days when Martial Artists stared in martial arts movies.

Any movie where a team of special forces/SWAT are slaughtered by some threat, and the nerdy scientist and/or the little teenage girl have to kill it. Ugh.


----------



## Merlion (Jul 28, 2005)

> Merlion, I'm a straight guy.  I don't have a problem with homosexuality politically or socially.  But--and I hope this doesn't offend you, but it's the truth--watching a gay sexual scene would disgust me.  (Perhaps watching a straight sexual scene provokes the same sensation in you?)  I would walk out of a movie that had a gay sex scene in it.  I wouldn't watch the movie in the first place if I knew there was one in there to begin with.
> 
> It's my guess that this is why you don't see this sort of thing in more movies.  Unfortunately, the majority of the viewing populace simply doesn't want to see it.
> 
> As to why lesbians seem to be more acceptable, well, straight folks don't have the same visceral reaction to a lesbian scene.  It's not fair, but it's true.





It doesnt offend me but I do find it a little funny since when it comes to it the two are a lot alike.

I know I'm getting off the subject a little bit here but I am curious as to your definition...obviously, mainstream movies do not show fully explicit sex scenes of any kind...usualy you see a guy and a girl in bed together, one on top of the other, writhing around, still more or less covered from the waist down.

So I'm curious...you would walk out of a movie that had a scene like that between two guys? A scene that really showed almost nothing? I'm just curious.

But really I guess the whole thing doesnt as much annoy me as I just find it sort of odd and funny. Female nudity is ok, but male isnt. I guess its because I was raised that gratuitious nudity is inapropriate, regardless of gender. But in Hollywood, female nudity is ok, and made use of, but male nudity (or even eroticism) is taboo.

Although it seems to be changing. Of course thats probably mostly because of two largely unrelated things...homosexuality is becoming more accepted, and I think women are starting to feel comfortable breaking out of some of their sterotypes (like that women dont enjoy seeing male bodies etc)


But getting back on subject a bit more, showing anything or not aside I do find it most annoying that gay characters in movies and TV are almost always 1) very much background characters and 2) generally walking sterotypes, usualy very negative. 

I would love to see an action movie with a gay male hero


Also, I'd like to agree with those who have mentioned various forms of problems with hearing and understanding the dialogue in movies. Its of course especially bad in action movies and the like. I'm big on details and I often find myself missing important points either because the music/sound effects are too loud, or the actors wont speak up.



Oh and another thing..related to although somewhat contradictory to one of my other comments...even thought Western cinema usualy seems to want to spoon feed us the plots of movies, some times they also seem to have an odd aversion to clear exposition. The new War of the Worlds was especially bad about this. Movies...especially sci fi/fantasy ones...will introduce elements in the story...and some times give them a good degree of importance...but fail to ever explain what they are or how they work.

In the context of a movie where everything else is being handed to you, it comes out odd. And usualy its not like a mystery or anything...its just something that should've been explained but wasnt.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 28, 2005)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But getting back on subject a bit more, showing anything or not aside I do find it most annoying that gay characters in movies and TV are almost always 1) very much background characters and 2) generally walking sterotypes, usualy very negative.
> 
> I would love to see an action movie with a gay male hero




Have you seen "Boondock Saints"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144117/

William Dafoe plays a gay FBI crime scene investigator. I thought that the character was a bit sterotypical (Played to a lot of Gay sterotypes), but I was never quite sure if he wasn't just playing with the heads of the other characters in that regards. He's not the main character, but is probably the third or fourth most important character in the movie.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 28, 2005)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But in Hollywood, female nudity is ok, and made use of, but male nudity (or even eroticism) is taboo.




I think that the real reason is much more mercenary than you suggest: Hollywood thinks that female nudity increases the box office potential of movies, while male nudity does not. Everything in Hollywood eventually comes down to money, and if haviing lots of naked men onscreen would kick up profits, Hollywood would do it. But (rightly or wrongly) Hollywood producers in general seem to believe that naked women sell, while naked men are, at best, profit neutral.

Hollywood doesn't think naked men and gay sex scenes are taboo. They just think those things won't get them more money if they put it onscreen. Hollywood isn't about art, its about profit. Smaller "indie" films are more likely to explore "less profitable" storylines, because they are more indulgent of "artistic expression" than $100 million+ blockbusters.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 28, 2005)

> I just find it sort of odd and funny. Female nudity is ok, but male isnt.




I think one reason for this may have been when movies first started to get big-budget in the 60's and 70's into the 80's.  Even up until the 80's, male actors were fully dressed a lot of the time, whereas the women started becoming more and more scantily clad.  Think of John Wayne films - is he ever tantalizingly sans clothing?  Not that this would be desirable in his later days with the whole grey-hair-eyepatch-pot belly thing going on, but in his day John was quite the hottie (_Stagecoach_ and such).  Yet he never had to take any clothes off to make a good film.  Even in his films, you didn't see sexpots strutting around wearing string bikinis.

And there's another thing.  Good male actors can draw in men and women viewers, regardless of what they look like; at least they used to.  I'm a John Wayne fan; I think he was awesome no matter what the subject matter of the movie was.  But in his later films he was quite not the hottie.  But he had fans, and his fans supported him.  These days, there aren't 5 or 6 leading credit male actors like John Wayne; there's dozens that are expected to put butts in the theater seats.  Matthew McConaghey, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Christian Bale (beginning to, anyway), the list goes on.  There's not a few other male actors to compete with, there's a lot.

The point of this rambling is that men didn't have to take their clothes off to make a good film, people still came to see the movies anyway.  Back in John Wayne's day, he didn't have to be buff, ripped, or cut; he just had to act.  Now they need rippling muscles, washboard abs, and chiseled cheekbones or they aren't considered big boxoffice.  Men in John Wayne's day didn't have to work out, and so they didn't.  They were in a lot worse shape than today's actors (Christian Bale in _Batman Begins_ was insanely ripped, holy cow!)  

These days, it seems like sex is needed to make more money for a film.  Look at the upcoming X3.  Why do they need to bring in a little-known sexpot trampy X-(wo)Man who uses pheromones to capture men?  The first 2 _X-Man_ films didn't make enough money or what?  Teenage boys are going to go see it for Mystique alone.  Who cares about another naked woman?

The only actor that I can think of to headline a recent movie that _hasn't_ been in any movies showing off his body, is Ewan McGregor, although I'm sure there are others.  And I like Ewan just fine (you rakishly grinning Scot, you!)

I think that men are just more visual creatures than women, and so men like to see ladies' naked bodies, but they don't want to have to work out themselves so women can admire theirs   That's the way it USED to be anyway, but there's been a shift so that men are required to be buff.  I don't _mind_ looking at hot male bodies, but to me the looks of the actors come after the plot, storyline, and effects of the film.

Wow, that was rambling.  I'm at work so I can't go back and edit


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 29, 2005)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I know I'm getting off the subject a little bit here but I am curious as to your definition...obviously, mainstream movies do not show fully explicit sex scenes of any kind...usualy you see a guy and a girl in bed together, one on top of the other, writhing around, still more or less covered from the waist down.
> 
> So I'm curious...you would walk out of a movie that had a scene like that between two guys?



Yes.  Unless we're talking about pornography, as you pointed out, nothing in the mainstream is going to be explicit.  Implicit is enough for me to leave.  _Implied_ I can deal with.  i.e. two men enter a room together and close the door behind them and we know what they're doing, but don't actually see anything.  But show me two men going at it under the sheets, I'm going to show myself to the door.







> But really I guess the whole thing doesnt as much annoy me as I just find it sort of odd and funny. Female nudity is ok, but male isnt. I guess its because I was raised that gratuitious nudity is inapropriate, regardless of gender. But in Hollywood, female nudity is ok, and made use of, but male nudity (or even eroticism) is taboo.



As StormRaven says, I think it's all about the money.  Hollywood isn't making any kind of statement about gay men.  They're merely responding to what they believe their audience wants and is willing to pay for.  Gay men may want to see more romantic plotlines that reflect their interests.  But if more straight men are turned away from a movie than gay men drawn to it (who wouldn't have seen the movie otherwise), then that's a losing proposition for Hollywood.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 29, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> <snip>
> I think that men are just more visual creatures than women, and so men like to see ladies' naked bodies, but they don't want to have to work out themselves so women can admire theirs  That's the way it USED to be anyway, but there's been a shift so that men are required to be buff. I don't _mind_ looking at hot male bodies, but to me the looks of the actors come after the plot, storyline, and effects of the film. <snip>




Excellent point, Hijinks. 
Personally, I don't want to see any of the guys running around shirtless or otherwise unclothed (well, as a general rule, anyway - I have to confess I thought a shirtless Hugh Jackman in Van Helsing was pretty hot  ). I don't really think all those rippling abs and bulging pecs are that attractive. I find bodybuilders kind of repulsive - and just look what happens when they get older! Anybody seen that pic of the Governator in a Speedo? Bleah! 

I'm with Lord Pendragon, really - on the whole I'd rather not see anybody wriggling around between the sheets, regardless of gender or physical "hotness". Let me use my imagination.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 29, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I find bodybuilders kind of repulsive - and just look what happens when they get older! Anybody seen that pic of the Governator in a Speedo? Bleah!




I find the "competition bodybuilders" to be repulsive. They look like some sort of mutant offspring of humanity, especially with all the buldging veins. 

While I am reluctant to do so, to be fair to Schwarzenegger, from what I understand that picture was taken after he had his heart attack/heart surgery and before he had started to "buff up".


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 30, 2005)

Sex doesn't bother me. If I can watch Robert de Niro (at 50) making love to Uma Thurman (at 23), and find it not repulsive but indeed touching and believable - it's not exactly true love at work, you know - I can't honestly be bothered by any kind of age gap, or by two guys, or by two unattractive people.

(Frankly, half of the sex scenes put into Hollywood films involve people I find very unattractive anyway.)

Anyway.

I hate *dubbing*. There's never an excuse for it. If you don't like subtitles, you don't get to see the movie in the language you don't understand, period. It utterly destroys the original performance and the film as a whole in a way that no letters on the screen ever could.

Yes, all of Germany, I'm looking at you. Follow Finland's example. (Though it is extremely hilarious when the guy that always does Brad Pitt is replaced by the guy that always does Tom Cruise for one movie, or whatever.)

I avoid wise-beyond-their-years kids and ditzy-women-held-up-as-admirable and all of that by not going to see bad films which make a virtue of sentiment.


----------



## GentleGiant (Jul 30, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> The only actor that I can think of to headline a recent movie that _hasn't_ been in any movies showing off his body, is Ewan McGregor, although I'm sure there are others.  And I like Ewan just fine (you rakishly grinning Scot, you!)



Clearly you've missed some of Ewan's earlier movies.
But then again, they might actually scare you... unless you think bigger is better


----------



## Harmon (Jul 30, 2005)

Predictablity in films & TV is my pet peve.

What I hate is sitting down in a movie and seeing in the first five minutes where the plot is headed.  "Those two die, she lives, and he will save her for the happy ever after."

Even worse is when the villian is a mysterey and I spot him in the first five seconds, then the end jumps up with a "bump, bump, bum!" and reveals who the mystery villian is that I could have told you about in the first seconds. 

About the camera jerking- I think that is as you say to make the viewer feel they are in the scene.  What it says to me is- "the people in the fight could not get the fight down so we had to jerk the camera about so that no one would notice how badly they are actually fighting."


----------



## trancejeremy (Jul 30, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> (Frankly, half of the sex scenes put into Hollywood films involve people I find very unattractive anyway.)
> .




A couple months ago, I was watching this horror movie I borrowed from the library, and sort of boom, all of a sudden, there was this sex scene involving Donald Sutherland (and the leading lady). Quite frankly, I really didn't need to see Donald Sutherland naked. 



As it's an old movie, it's not really a trend, but it was disturbing.

Other than that, really good movie, though  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069995/


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 30, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And yet...
> 
> the filming technique used to create those scenes is usually...get this...a real stuntman outrunning a real explosion.
> 
> ...



I do not believe it for a moment.  One of the basic tenets of stuntwork is that the stuntman should survive the performance of the stunt unharmed.  I really think it would tend to result in rather too many cases of burned stuntpersons, or at least be UNNECESSARILY dangerous enough that if it were the case no insurance company would touch such a production.  Check me if I'm wrong but unless a stunt calls for a character to actually BE on fire the scene is going to be filmed in such a way as to keep fire and people quite safely far from each other.  This would be EASILY accomplished with simple camera work adjusting the depth of field (though these days even simple explosions can have additional fire elements composited or animated into the scene).

Hey, if I'm wrong on this so be it - I'm not a stuntman, or movie pyrotechnician - but you'd have to prove to me that it's a common practice and method.

Now they might TIME the detonations, but they don't "outrun" the effects.  Even careful timing occasionally goes horribly wrong and the physics of an explosion are simply such that human beings cannot outrun a gasoline fireball.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 30, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I hate *dubbing*. There's never an excuse for it. If you don't like subtitles, you don't get to see the movie in the language you don't understand, period. It utterly destroys the original performance and the film as a whole in a way that no letters on the screen ever could.




I fail to see how dubbed dialogue destroys the performance anymore than listening to a language you don't understand and having to read a translation at the bottom of the screen.

Sorry, I just get annoyed by people who act like watching foreign language films in subtitles is somehow superior to watching them dubbed.  Anime fanboys do this a _lot_, and it's one of the biggest reasons why I don't hang out in anime fan communities anymore.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 30, 2005)

Pardon me for getting long-winded again here.


			
				sniffles said:
			
		

> Have a bad experience at the movies lately, Funny Hat?



Nope.  Just despise ingnorant and irresponsible parents, as well as the kind of stupidity that productes the ratings systems we have in this country.


> Actually, I think some of the blame here should lie with the theatres that don't enforce the ratings. How many times have any of us been asked for ID when enterting a theatre? The staff just take your money and hand you a ticket. They don't ask if you're old enough to be escorting that minor into the theatre, and they don't refuse to admit people with children to from NC-17 movies. The rating system is meaningless if no one applies it.



Or is it that noone applies it because it's meaningless?  What is the penalty for allowing a 16 year old into an NC-17 movie?  There ISN'T one.  It simply isn't up to the theatre to restrict your entry into the movie because of the ratings.  The ratings don't work that way.  The only way a situation like that can get you in legal trouble is letting underage kids into X-rated movies but that's not because of the ratings - it's because of providing minors access to pornography.

If you go look into the MPAA website you'll see that the purpose of the ratings is supposed to be strictly informational.  It's ONLY meant to provide PARENTS with guidance on the appropriateness of the content of a film for their children.  If you're an adult who is not responsible for children the ratings are effectively meaningless.  Even so, the system is entirely voluntary on the part of the studios and they are under no legal requirement to submit their films to the ratings board.  The ratings board are not censors.  What they are is a group of 14-18 individuals who are subject to their own standards of what's appropriate.  They vote on ratings by simple majority.

Given the incredibly simplistic categories of the current ratings system it's no wonder that their apparant standards of appropriateness swing wildly.  Take the case of the South Park movie.  It was originally given an NC-17 rating and told they'd have to remove some things to get a lower rating.  According to the makers of the film they instead put even MORE "offensive" material in and when resubmitted it earned an R.  Movies are recut and resubmitted to earn lower ratings for only one reason - more parents will take their children or allow them to see movies with content supposedly more appropriate for a wider, younger audience.  That is, they want lower MPAA ratings to make more money.

But the ratings don't seperate out elements of language, nudity, violence - the ratings don't enable them to be specific.  The result is that the individual elements aren't generally why a film earns a given rating.  The ratings are decided with the content taken as a whole because there is no PG-V (for violence) or R-NL (for nudity/language) rating.  Although IF YOU LOOK, you can find reviews that will indicate WHY a film was given a particular rating, but the rating itself does not.  So what you've got is a ratings system that is less than informative and a public that doesn't really understand the how/why of the ratings, puts far too much faith in the ratings as a result, or else largely ignore the ratings anyway.

That means that the problem is both ignorant, irresponsible parents and a very bad rating system.

It kinda seems like there might now be some changes in store for ratings not just of movies but music and games too because of this stupid _Grand Theft Auto_ lawsuit.  Those changes are not likely to be too good for ANYBODY because it's going to result in GOVERNEMENT involvement, which frankly is VASTLY worse than 14 yr olds playing the "hidden" nudie version of GTA:SA


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 31, 2005)

*Dubbing*



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Sorry, I just get annoyed by people who act like watching foreign language films in subtitles is somehow superior to watching them dubbed.  Anime fanboys do this a _lot_, and it's one of the biggest reasons why I don't hang out in anime fan communities anymore.




Two things about this: a) A lot of what people hate about dubbing probably has to do with instances of BAD dubbing. If I see a Hong Kong Jackie Chan film, ideally it would be great to have him to the dubbing himself, but  barring this, have someone with a similar accent and voice, and it isn't too bad. There is one of his films though, where his voice seems to  have been done by some large jawed, butch Causasian male, and it sounded pretty bad coming from his character. There is just something -way- more aesthetic about hearing the right voice from the right person. If that annoys you, so be it, but I believe it to be the truth. b) I don't mind dubbing in anime at all. I don't think I have ever seen an anime cartoon with subtitles, though I'd like to. Since these are cartoons, there isn't really an inherent right voice, though there are still original voices, good voices and bad voices. I think most anime fanboys probably are turned off by performances that truly are subpar when compared to the original Japanese. 

There is some other disturbing trend that I was going to post about, but I can't seem to remember what it was at this moment... Oh yes... I really -despise- seeing commercials at the theatre, at least ones that have nothing to do with the theatre experience itself. I could stomach ones for food stuffs (no pun intended, really) available from the concession, but I do not want to see a freakin' car commercial or cell phone ad at the theatre. 
On the other than, I don't mind, I even look forward to, trailers for movies that aren't coming out yet, especially for ones that won't be out for a while. I know some people complain about having to sit through like twenty of these, but as long as two or three of those twenty were worth it, and  the rest were interesting or mediocre, it's all good.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 31, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I fail to see how dubbed dialogue destroys the performance anymore than listening to a language you don't understand and having to read a translation at the bottom of the screen.
> 
> Sorry, I just get annoyed by people who act like watching foreign language films in subtitles is somehow superior to watching them dubbed.  Anime fanboys do this a _lot_, and it's one of the biggest reasons why I don't hang out in anime fan communities anymore.



 For me, its all about seeing the movie/show/whatever as it was originally intended to be seen. But I'm not going to get into a dub/sub argument, as both sides have valid points and its really just a thing of preference. Those arguments are why I avoid the anime community.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 31, 2005)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> Two things about this: a) A lot of what people hate about dubbing probably has to do with instances of BAD dubbing. If I see a Hong Kong Jackie Chan film, ideally it would be great to have him to the dubbing himself, but  barring this, have someone with a similar accent and voice, and it isn't too bad. There is one of his films though, where his voice seems to  have been done by some large jawed, butch Causasian male, and it sounded pretty bad coming from his character. There is just something -way- more aesthetic about hearing the right voice from the right person. If that annoys you, so be it, but I believe it to be the truth.




I prefer neither subtitles nor dubs.  I don't think subtitles are fantastic and the only possible way to watch foreign language films, nor do I think that dubs are awful trash intended for unsophisticated louts.  I do, however, hate the arrogance I often see from people who act like watching only subtitled foreign films makes them inherently more intelligent and sophisticated than dub-watchers, or that watching a movie in subtitles is the only "true" way to watch it. 



> b) I don't mind dubbing in anime at all. I don't think I have ever seen an anime cartoon with subtitles, though I'd like to. Since these are cartoons, there isn't really an inherent right voice, though there are still original voices, good voices and bad voices. I think most anime fanboys probably are turned off by performances that truly are subpar when compared to the original Japanese.




From my own expirience with anime fanboys (i.e. being treated like a leper for defending dubs), there's also an element of elitism in there; they see dubs as a sign of "mainstreaming" anime, and this threatens their unique, non-conformist status.  If anime becomes cool and everyone starts watching it, then they will suddenly be considered part of the unwashed masses.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> For me, its all about seeing the movie/show/whatever as it was originally intended to be seen.




Then technically, shouldn't you be watching it in the original language with no subtitles at all?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 31, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Then technically, shouldn't you be watching it in the original language with no subtitles at all?




You'd be amazed how many times I've done this and how much you can actually understand.  But really, adding text at the bottom is much smaller of a change than changing voice actors, etc.

Like I said, I've got no problem with dubbed movies/anime...I simply prefer subtitles. The wars that go on about which is better are all horribly pointless, as its completely a matter of personal taste. I started my watching of non-English movies/anime with subtitles, and so that's where my preference has always been.

EDIT: Also, in live action movies, I really really prefer subs...as many times you can tell that the voice just doesn't go with the person.


----------



## Phaedrus (Aug 1, 2005)

- Count me in the "hate for jerky camera know no limit" gang.

- Skinny, tooth-pick arm women beating up men twice their size. Is it possible for a non-anorexic woman to star in an action film?

- Men are idiots, women are smart and here on earth to prevent stupid men from doing too much damage. I'm sick of this trope.

- Let's make fun of Christianity (and Catholicism in particular) in every possible way, even (especially) when it's a sidetrack from the plot.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 2, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> As StormRaven says, I think it's all about the money.  Hollywood isn't making any kind of statement about gay men.  They're merely responding to what they believe their audience wants and is willing to pay for.  Gay men may want to see more romantic plotlines that reflect their interests.  But if more straight men are turned away from a movie than gay men drawn to it (who wouldn't have seen the movie otherwise), then that's a losing proposition for Hollywood.




It's more blunt than that: gay men (and women) make up a vanishingly small fraction of the potential audience for a movie. Only a few percent of movie goers are likely to be gay, as opposed to the overwhelming majority who are straight. Pandering to a group that consistutes a few percent of your potential audience isn't likely to be a profitable endeavor.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 2, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It's more blunt than that: gay men (and women) make up a vanishingly small fraction of the potential audience for a movie. Only a few percent of movie goers are likely to be gay, as opposed to the overwhelming majority who are straight. Pandering to a group that consistutes a few percent of your potential audience isn't likely to be a profitable endeavor.



As evidence, witness the spectacular nose dive of Ellen (the original sitcom, not the more recent talk show) when it became all about being gay.

DeGeneris herself was quick to blame the Network for not supporting her enough, but let's face it; that's preposterous.  Ellen was one of their biggest hits.  It got cancelled because no one wanted to watch it anymore.

And this is lesbianism; which you believe to be _more_ "acceptable" to audiences.  As others have said, movies that feature gay romantic plotlines are most likely going to tank bigtime with mainstream audiences, and therefore lose big bucks.  El cheapo low budget indie films, on the other hand, if picked up for distribution on DVD, might have a shot.


----------



## Hijinks (Aug 2, 2005)

I believe there's a film called _Brokeback Mountain _coming out (pardon the pun) this year that has a gay story line:

_The new film from Academy Award-winning director Ang Lee. An epic love story set against the sweeping vistas of Wyoming and Texas, Brokeback Mountain tells the story of two young men - a ranch-hand and a rodeo cowboy - who meet in the summer of 1963, and unexpectedly forge a lifelong connection, one whose complications, joys and tragedies provide a testament to the endurance and power of love._ (Source: IMDB)

Larry McMurtry wrote the screenplay. Jake Gyllenhal and Heath Ledger are the two male leads. I'm not sure if it will be a flat-out gay romance, since there are also female leads, but whenever I've seen it mentioned in the gossip magazines, it's been referred to as a "gay cowboy movie." Now, since I don't really trust anything a gossip magazine tells me, I'm going to just wait until it actually comes out to see what it's truly about.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 2, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> As evidence, witness the spectacular nose dive of Ellen (the original sitcom, not the more recent talk show) when it became all about being gay.
> 
> DeGeneris herself was quick to blame the Network for not supporting her enough, but let's face it; that's preposterous. Ellen was one of their biggest hits. It got cancelled because no one wanted to watch it anymore.




It depends on how it's handled, really. Ellen made the mistake of doing a full bore about-face in-your-face move, and making the show totally about her sexuality as if that could sustain a comedy show. If she had made it a natural organic part of the show and character, that show would probably still be running today since itwas pretty darn funny. She just dropped the ball. . Buffy probably has the best depiction of a gay character I've ever seen on TV; it was almost incidental, flowed naturally from the circumstances, and never became the sole focus of either character. That's how to handle it, I think.


----------



## Hijinks (Aug 2, 2005)

If TV shows that are in-your-face about homosexuality are a recipie for failure, explain the success of _Will and Grace_.

I think Jack is frickin hilarious but occasionally I do feel uncomfortable with the homosexual references, so I personally do not watch it very often, but it has a large following and is a very funny show.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 2, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I fail to see how dubbed dialogue destroys the performance anymore than listening to a language you don't understand and having to read a translation at the bottom of the screen.
> 
> Sorry, I just get annoyed by people who act like watching foreign language films in subtitles is somehow superior to watching them dubbed. Anime fanboys do this a _lot_, and it's one of the biggest reasons why I don't hang out in anime fan communities anymore.




Dubbing does not destroy the performance but it certainly does distract from it since so much of it is done badly with inappropriate voices. I like hearing the original voices since they often communicate emotion and more through tone and pacing. Some dubs are good. THe Studio Ghibli ones have been very, very good and they don't distract from the film. Some parts of Princess Mononoke might even be _better_ for the dubbing, given the voices involved. 

So much of it is done badly, though, and I think that the subbed copy is, in that case, indeed a superior product. It's still not as good as knowing the language, though, especially for the humor titles. A lot of anime humor stems from regional dialects, language play, the nuances of the various terms of respect, puns and other things that are almost impossible to translate. I live Neo-Ranga for having a translators notes add-on for the DVD where they explain the translation process more fully. It's totally fascinating.

Using the 'sub is superior because it is sub' is still foolish because of this very fact - even the sub you're getting is still chaning things because otherwise you'd need about thirty lines of text to put some parts in context. (OK, in this scene, Amiko's tone and use of the word 'X' indicates she's really playing up the distance between her and her sister since she's using a term of respect normally reserved for an older relative of a higher social status).


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 2, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> I'm not one to be severly disappointed in a movie, however there is one trend in today's filmmaking that I really don't like.  It's the trend of directors having the camera jerk around during a battle scene so that you feel like you're "in the middle" of the fight.
> 
> I'm sure some of you out there really like it, but I personally actually get motion sickness from the camera jerking around like that...
> 
> ...




Be Very thankful you never say The Blair Witch Project. I actually liked the movie, but the whole movie triggers motion sickness in those overly vulnerable to it.

I get eyeball pounding headaches from movies like that and most First person shooter games.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 2, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> If TV shows that are in-your-face about homosexuality are a recipie for failure, explain the success of _Will and Grace_.
> 
> I think Jack is frickin hilarious but occasionally I do feel uncomfortable with the homosexual references, so I personally do not watch it very often, but it has a large following and is a very funny show.




I haven't seen many episodes of it, either, but they do a lot more than just dwell on WIll's sexuality. Very little of the show is actually about that or focused on it, so I'd say it's very much not 'in yor face'. Ellen went to the other extreme, practically yelling at the audience, 'Hey! Over here! Look at me! Gay, here!" So it seemed to me.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 2, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> If TV shows that are in-your-face about homosexuality are a recipie for failure, explain the success of _Will and Grace_.



Will and Grace is a parody and a comedy.  From the conversations I've had with gay men (and women) they don't necessarily think that it has "furthered their cause" any at all.

And like WayneLigon said, there's a huge difference between Will and Grace and Ellen post-closet-coming-out-of.


----------



## Hijinks (Aug 2, 2005)

I disagree.  Will isn't the only gay character; Jack is flamboyantly gay and very much in-your-face.  Karen also makes sexual references about other women.  The only character (in my opinion) on the show who doesn't make sexual references every other sentence is Grace.


----------



## sniffles (Aug 2, 2005)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Pardon me for getting long-winded again here.
> Nope. Just despise ingnorant and irresponsible parents, as well as the kind of stupidity that productes the ratings systems we have in this country.
> Or is it that noone applies it because it's meaningless? What is the penalty for allowing a 16 year old into an NC-17 movie? There ISN'T one. It simply isn't up to the theatre to restrict your entry into the movie because of the ratings. The ratings don't work that way. The only way a situation like that can get you in legal trouble is letting underage kids into X-rated movies but that's not because of the ratings - it's because of providing minors access to pornography.




That's a very valid point. The rating system doesn't have any consequences, it's just an advisory. Personally I'd like to just see people barred from theatres more often. Kick that 16-year-old out of the NC-17 movie, take his ID or his picture and post it in the ticket booth, and don't let him in that theatre again for *any* movie until he's 18. But that'll never happen.


----------



## mojo1701 (Aug 2, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Will isn't the only gay character; Jack is flamboyantly gay and very much in-your-face.  Karen also makes sexual references about other women.  The only character (in my opinion) on the show who doesn't make sexual references every other sentence is Grace.




That, and Jack and Karen are the Kramers of the show. They're there for (more) comic relief. Jack's flamboyant, but it's more of a parody, as he gets made fun of so much.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 2, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> If TV shows that are in-your-face about homosexuality are a recipie for failure, explain the success of _Will and Grace_.




Television viewing audiences are more fractured than ever, with fewer people watching network shows. It is likely that you can occasionally appeal to a very small demographic on television on one or two shows these days because nobody is getting a big audience to begin with.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 2, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Dubbing does not destroy the performance but it certainly does distract from it since so much of it is done badly with inappropriate voices. I like hearing the original voices since they often communicate emotion and more through tone and pacing. Some dubs are good. THe Studio Ghibli ones have been very, very good and they don't distract from the film. Some parts of Princess Mononoke might even be _better_ for the dubbing, given the voices involved.
> 
> So much of it is done badly, though, and I think that the subbed copy is, in that case, indeed a superior product. It's still not as good as knowing the language, though, especially for the humor titles. A lot of anime humor stems from regional dialects, language play, the nuances of the various terms of respect, puns and other things that are almost impossible to translate. I live Neo-Ranga for having a translators notes add-on for the DVD where they explain the translation process more fully. It's totally fascinating.
> 
> Using the 'sub is superior because it is sub' is still foolish because of this very fact - even the sub you're getting is still chaning things because otherwise you'd need about thirty lines of text to put some parts in context. (OK, in this scene, Amiko's tone and use of the word 'X' indicates she's really playing up the distance between her and her sister since she's using a term of respect normally reserved for an older relative of a higher social status).



As a German, I know the drawbacks of dubbing*). But most the time, I don´t disagree with the voices, but more with the skill of the translation. I noticed in some movies I watched both on English and German, that something didn´t match entirely. Sometimes I notice it even if I watched the movie only in German. 
The truth probably is, most the time it doesn´t matter much. But when it matters, you want the original version - but it makes only sense if you can actually understand it. I am limited to German and English, I am not really interested in learning further languages (or refreshing and improving my French). Luckily, English and German is sufficient most the time. 


*) Though the worst example of bad dubbing wasn´t in a movie, but in a computer game. Command & Conquer - Tiberian Sun. There was a scene where the NOD soldiers would hail their leader, Kane - it was totally unemotional and unconvincing in German - the scene I saw in a trailer for the game was a lot more "inspiring"...


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 3, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I fail to see how dubbed dialogue destroys the performance anymore than listening to a language you don't understand and having to read a translation at the bottom of the screen.




Watch what you like.  Personally, I prefer subtitles -- I read quickly and after a few minutes, the whole process becomes automatic -- I no longer register the subtitles at all.  And I get the intonation of the actual voice to supplement the translation.

I'm gonna have to get that "Ong Bak" movie.  My wife is half-Thai and grew up in Bangkok; she'll probably recognize her house or school or something.  She'll at least have fun picking apart the translation.  And the martial arts look kick-butt.

Also -- she's the one that picks out the "frat party" movies with R-ratings for sexual innuendo and lots of (female) flesh.

Cheers
Nell.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 3, 2005)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Watch what you like.  Personally, I prefer subtitles -- I read quickly and after a few minutes, the whole process becomes automatic -- I no longer register the subtitles at all.  And I get the intonation of the actual voice to supplement the translation.



Now, what I'm about to say only refers to Japanese anime:

I used to prefer subtitles, because I thought the Japanese voices were more realistic and less "cartoony" than the dubbed ones, which were often completely overdone.

Then I lived in Japan for three years, and realized that the Japanese voices are just as overdone as anything dubbed into English.  I just didn't recognize it, because I didn't--at the time--speak any Japanese.  So I caught the emotion, but didn't realize just how over-the-top the voices were.  As such, watching anime in Japanese cut out some of the childishness inherent in American voice acting (at least then--I think American dubbing has gotten better by leaps and bounds.)

So the next time you watch subtitled anime, remember that the voices that you're hearing are just as over-the-top in Japanese, as the old G.I. Joe voices are in English. 


As an aside, I still prefer subtitles today, but for entirely different reasons.


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 3, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Now, what I'm about to say only refers to Japanese anime:




Cool.   I don't watch anime.

 
Nell.


----------



## Joker (Aug 3, 2005)

What's even worse than dubbing is dubbing where you still hear the original at the same time but then in the background.  Luckily I've only had this experience with Russian Tv-shows.

Speaking of Russian and on the topic of subtitles.  The movie  Night Watch (Nochnoi Dozor) used English subtitles to enhance what was happening in the movie.
In this scene where one of the characters is being "called" telepathically by a vampire, what the vampire says is translated in red and wispy letters, sometimes bleeding because the movie explained the calling as a tugging of the blood.

It was completely unintrusive and very well done.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 3, 2005)

> If anime becomes cool and everyone starts watching it, then they will suddenly be considered part of the unwashed masses.




They already are.  Look at the success of Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, neo-anime like Teen Titans and The Batman, etc.  Cartoon Network, etc.  

Anime and Manga is now considered mainstream.


----------



## mojo1701 (Aug 3, 2005)

Joker said:
			
		

> What's even worse than dubbing is dubbing where you still hear the original at the same time but then in the background.  Luckily I've only had this experience with Russian Tv-shows.




When I was in Poland about four years ago, this happened to me, too. Though, it was on the cheaper satellite stations they had.


----------



## sniffles (Aug 3, 2005)

Joker said:
			
		

> What's even worse than dubbing is dubbing where you still hear the original at the same time but then in the background. Luckily I've only had this experience with Russian Tv-shows.
> 
> Speaking of Russian and on the topic of subtitles. The movie Night Watch (Nochnoi Dozor) used English subtitles to enhance what was happening in the movie.
> In this scene where one of the characters is being "called" telepathically by a vampire, what the vampire says is translated in red and wispy letters, sometimes bleeding because the movie explained the calling as a tugging of the blood.
> ...




Oh, that's neat! I hope there will be something similar for the American release.

I hate subtitles that are badly done/illegible, although that mainly seemed to be a failing of old Hong Kong subs on action movies. Now that such movies are relatively popular in the US, the subtitling has improved considerably. No more white subtitles over light-colored backgrounds, and the translations are much better too (maybe not necessarily more accurate, but at least they make sense to English speakers now  ).


----------



## Rackhir (Aug 3, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Then I lived in Japan for three years, and realized that the Japanese voices are just as overdone as anything dubbed into English. I just didn't recognize it, because I didn't--at the time--speak any Japanese. So I caught the emotion, but didn't realize just how over-the-top the voices were. As such, watching anime in Japanese cut out some of the childishness inherent in American voice acting (at least then--I think American dubbing has gotten better by leaps and bounds.




I might have asked you this before, but were you in Japan on the JET Program BTW? I was and 3 years was the time limit on that.

Back In The Days Of Yore, I was had a Japanese friend of the family trying to translate Project-Ako for me and she had a LOT of trouble with C-Ko's dialogue because her voice was so high pitched and squeeky.



			
				Joker said:
			
		

> What's even worse than dubbing is dubbing where you still hear the original at the same time but then in the background. Luckily I've only had this experience with Russian Tv-shows.




They do this often in Japan when an English speaker is being interviewed/clip shown, etc... To make things even wierder, some of this is broadcast in English and some times you get the English dubbed voice over the Japanese dubbed voice over the original english.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 4, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> They do this often in Japan when an English speaker is being interviewed



They do this everywhere. It's standard interview translating.


> To make things even wierder, some of this is broadcast in English and some times you get the English dubbed voice over the Japanese dubbed voice over the original english.



This, however, is weird.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 4, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> I might have asked you this before, but were you in Japan on the JET Program BTW? I was and 3 years was the time limit on that.



Why yes, I was indeed there through the JET program (Yatsushiro City, Kumamoto Prefecture, Kyushu Island).  I got a fantastic posting and had the time of my life for all three years.  Glad to meet a fellow alum.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 5, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I fail to see how dubbed dialogue destroys the performance anymore than listening to a language you don't understand and having to read a translation at the bottom of the screen.



As I said, it has to do with the performance. I don't think I'm alone in getting more out of a performance when I can hear *how* an actor says something - I'm not just interested in what is said, I'm interested in how it's said.

Perhaps I would feel differently if dubbed-over dialogue was *ever* done in an attempt to reproduce the original performance - but it's not.

I watched _The Godfather_ last night, which features unsubtitled Italian (Sicilian!) dialogue in about 10% of the film. I don't feel like I missed anything, because the performances conveyed the necessary information.

You can never have the same experience when you're hearing some third-rate vocal performance not-quite-coming out of the mouth of a first-rate actor. It *destroys* the performance utterly.

In comparison, subtitles are nothing. Perhaps they bother me less because I can read them at a glance - I'm aware not everyone reads as quickly as I do.


> Sorry, I just get annoyed by people who act like watching foreign language films in subtitles is somehow superior to watching them dubbed.  Anime fanboys do this a _lot_, and it's one of the biggest reasons why I don't hang out in anime fan communities anymore.



I can't speak to the sub/dub controversy in anime, because I loathe it.

I'll just never see why someone thinks you can watch _Hero_ with some American's voice in Jet Li's mouth and be experiencing the film as it was meant to be seen.

(I also take issue with the deliberately Americanised subtitles in the Western-audience version. I watched _Hero_ first with the Chinese-produced subtitles on Hong's Region 3 DVD, and they're far better. "Our Land" my arse.)


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 6, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Perhaps I would feel differently if dubbed-over dialogue was *ever* done in an attempt to reproduce the original performance - but it's not.




That's a rather glib generalization.  Heck, I've gotten more out of the dubbed version of _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_ than I ever did from the subbed version.



> You can never have the same experience when you're hearing some third-rate vocal performance not-quite-coming out of the mouth of a first-rate actor. It *destroys* the performance utterly.




Most communication is nonverbal.  I can usually tell what a character is feeling onscreen by facial expressions, body language, and actions (provided they are putting in a good performance, and if they aren't, then why make a big deal over it being dubbed in the first place?).  It dosen't bother me in the slightest if the dub actor dosen't match the pitch and volume of the original actor's voice exactly.



> In comparison, subtitles are nothing. Perhaps they bother me less because I can read them at a glance - I'm aware not everyone reads as quickly as I do.




Heck, I don't mind subtitles either.  My problem is with sub snobs.



> I'll just never see why someone thinks you can watch _Hero_ with some American's voice in Jet Li's mouth and be experiencing the film as it was meant to be seen.




It's a concept known as "People having different opinions than you do."  Not everyone feels that the only "true" way to watch a movie is in the original language with subtitles at the bottom of the screen.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 6, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> My problem is with sub snobs.




But not everyone who prefers subs is a snob.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 6, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> But not everyone who prefers subs is a snob.



 Indeed.  If a person prefers subs, that's okay.  I was specifically referring to people who act like subtitles are the _only_ way to watch foreign language films, and anybody who watches the dubbed version of something is watching it incorrectly.


----------



## Joker (Aug 8, 2005)

Although I prefer the subs over dubs, the one thing I hate about subtitles is that they sometimes come before the spoken words of the movie.


----------



## Rackhir (Aug 8, 2005)

Joker said:
			
		

> Although I prefer the subs over dubs, the one thing I hate about subtitles is that they sometimes come before the spoken words of the movie.




This is a problem inherent to doing subtitles, especially when you are dealing with languages that have a different sentence order like Japanese where it is often backwards to how it would be worded in English. Then you have the problem of dealing with text that can't be translated literally and you have to get creative with the target language to get the meaning across.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Aug 9, 2005)

As a parent of younger children, I have issues with other parents who take their children to rated R, etc. movies -- the ratings standards are loose enough as it is without just disregarding them.

However, my bigger issue is with Movie Makers making what should be children's movies and turning up the profanity, volience, etc. in order to make it PG-13 for the $$-factor... ie. Spiderman I & II, Fantastic Four -- all great comic book heroes that I would love my son to embrace -- Dukes of Hazard (should be a fun family flick, but isn't), Bad New Bears, etc.

Cest la vie.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 10, 2005)

dogoftheunderworld said:
			
		

> However, my bigger issue is with Movie Makers making what should be children's movies and turning up the profanity, volience, etc. in order to make it PG-13 for the $$-factor... ie. Spiderman I & II, Fantastic Four -- all great comic book heroes that I would love my son to embrace -- Dukes of Hazard (should be a fun family flick, but isn't), Bad New Bears, etc.



Then again, there are moviegoers such as myself who would be upset if Spiderman I & II had been made as children's movies.  I don't care for most children's movies, and would prefer to see something a bit more robust.  I imagine that PG-13 is the closest we are going to get to a compromise between your stance and mine.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 10, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Then again, there are moviegoers such as myself who would be upset if Spiderman I & II had been made as children's movies.  I don't care for most children's movies, and would prefer to see something a bit more robust.  I imagine that PG-13 is the closest we are going to get to a compromise between your stance and mine.



 Heh, and not only that, but most comic book movies can be found in more child friendly cartoon series these days.


----------



## Rackhir (Aug 10, 2005)

dogoftheunderworld said:
			
		

> However, my bigger issue is with Movie Makers making what should be children's movies and turning up the profanity, volience, etc. in order to make it PG-13 for the $$-factor... ie. Spiderman I & II, Fantastic Four -- all great comic book heroes that I would love my son to embrace -- Dukes of Hazard (should be a fun family flick, but isn't), Bad New Bears, etc.
> 
> Cest la vie.




Have you actually seen the original Bad News Bears? From what I recall of it, it was a pretty rude and crude movie, at least for the time. I've not seen the new film, but it sounds like its pretty much in the vein of the original film. Something designed to appeal to near-teen to early teen boys. 

What profanity was there in Spiderman and FF? As for violence, well they were comic book movies. Fighting is what comic book characters do. Spiderman does get a bit beat up/cut up in the movies, but it's nothing terribly graphic. However, I've always been kinda fuzzy on the dividing line between pg-13 and pg. PG-13 was not a rating that ever made much sense to me.

Dukes, well. I have a dim view of anything involving southern "Good O'Boys" especially when they make a point of waving the confederate flag around. Also when you have a character for whom really-really short cut jeans have been named for, I'd be expecting a pretty extensive amount of sexual innuendo.

What do you consider to be good family friendly movies?


----------



## MulhorandSage (Aug 10, 2005)

Let's see... here's my list.

- Shaky cameras. Show me you can do a coherent action scene without tricks, then get fancy.
- Mood lighting that produces incredibly underlit movies.
- Historical protagonists fighting for modern values in inappropriate venues.
- Movies about badasses or underdogs who fight "the system" and yet somehow manage to be as formulaic as anything that Hollywood produces. 
- Excessive potty and dick jokes. There's a point where funny ends and lazy writing begins.


----------



## Merlion (Aug 11, 2005)

> However, my bigger issue is with Movie Makers making what should be children's movies and turning up the profanity, volience, etc. in order to make it PG-13 for the $$-factor... ie. Spiderman I & II, Fantastic Four





I also have to take exception with this. Especially the Spider Man movies featured very minimal profanity, and basically no adult themes. There was, of course, fightning since as has been mentioned thats what comic book heroes do...but it was in no way excessive or terribly graphic. In the Spiderman movies, toward the end of each Spiderman got beat up a little bit, and slightly bloodied but that was about it. 


Most of the Marvel movies have been similar. Very limited profanity (usualy pretty much limited to the occasional "hell" or "damn") and the usual comic book violence. Fantastic Four had one or two stronger "adult" innuendos, and the violence in say Daredevil was a trifle more intense. But overall I think they've done a very nice job of making the Marvel hero movies family friendly.


However, on the other hand, I do agree with the principle of what your saying...profanity, adult content etc thrown in for no real reason. However, I also truly feel that this seems to be becoming a bit less common. I think many directors are starting to understand that they dont have to overuse those things in order to make movies appeal to people of certain demographics. Especially in terms of fantasy/sci fi/comic book type movies...those of us who go to see those movies are going for the stories, the magic/superpowers/spaceships whatever, the monsters, the characters all that stuff. If they concentrate on that, they will do well.


----------



## amethal (Aug 11, 2005)

My pet hate about movies is how my wife and her friends can happily discuss in front of me how much they'd all like to sleep with Vin Diesel, but some off-hand remark I may have made years ago about Nicolle Kidman has never been forgiven.   

Don't have many any pet hates about films themselves - don't seem to have even noticed most of the shaky cam people have been complaining about.

If a film is sub-titled, I do like being able to read them. It took me ages to find "Man Bites Dog" on video. Its in black and white, and my copy has the sub-titles added in white at the bottom of the screen. Surely someone should have realised that its hard to read white text on a grey/white background, and added a black bar or something?

I generally prefer sub-titles to dubbing. I can't imagine watching Yojimbo with someone else speaking Toshiro Mifune's part.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Heh, and not only that, but most comic book movies can be found in more child friendly cartoon series these days.



And most of those comic books themselves aren't necessarily as kid friendly as implied either.  Ultimate Spiderman, for example, is inappropriate for kids younger than 13, I'd say.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2005)

amethal said:
			
		

> My pet hate about movies is how my wife and her friends can happily discuss in front of me how much they'd all like to sleep with Vin Diesel, but some off-hand remark I may have made years ago about Nicolle Kidman has never been forgiven.



  My wife and I have a running gag about which Hollywood personalities we've got crushes on.


			
				amethal said:
			
		

> I generally prefer sub-titles to dubbing. I can't imagine watching Yojimbo with someone else speaking Toshiro Mifune's part.



For me it depends on the movie.  I wouldn't watch any Kurosawa movie dubbed, but when I tried to watch Shaolin Soccor subbed, I had to switch the DVD over to the dubbed version within a few minutes.  The subtitles were changing so fast that I pretty much had to either read the subtitles or watch the movie, as I couldn't do both.


----------



## amethal (Aug 11, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For me it depends on the movie.  I wouldn't watch any Kurosawa movie dubbed, but when I tried to watch Shaolin Soccor subbed, I had to switch the DVD over to the dubbed version within a few minutes.  The subtitles were changing so fast that I pretty much had to either read the subtitles or watch the movie, as I couldn't do both.



I heard somewhere that The Full Monty was sub-titled for American audiences. Dubbing that would have been weird ....

In some cases I'd like to advocate a new form of semi-dubbing combined with sub-titling. In this situation, the actor's voice is removed but no other voice replaces it. Sub-titles are added for the benefit of any in the audience who are actually interested in knowing what he was saying.

Jar-Jar Binks would benefit from this treatment, in my opinion.


----------



## Joker (Aug 12, 2005)

Jar-Jar Banks would benefit from some editing INNSHO.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL! (Aug 12, 2005)

amethal said:
			
		

> My pet hate about movies is how my wife and her friends can happily discuss in front of me how much they'd all like to sleep with Vin Diesel, but some off-hand remark I may have made years ago about Nicolle Kidman has never been forgiven.   .




Poor guy, my girlfriend likes to discuss beautiful women with me.


----------



## Rackhir (Aug 12, 2005)

Joker said:
			
		

> Jar-Jar Banks would benefit from some editing INNSHO.




Try doing a search on "Star Wars : The Phantom Edit".


----------

