"Top 10 Movie No No's From a Guy Who Doesn't Know Much About Movies Or The Industry" (not necessarily in the order of importance)
Submitted by kevbro on Thu, 07/17/2003 - 02:48
Tags:
- NO "true life" couples sharing the same screen romantically!! (eg. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman). Sex scenes become gross suddenly as if i'm watching a home movie or something: "Watch this! This is where she and I do it!" J-Lo and Affleck? It's like watching the "secret sex tapes" of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee... uh, which I haven't seen of course.
- NO poorly matched actor to character rolls!! This one's obvious but I felt it's not taken seriously by many directors. This is extremely important in comedy due to the fact that there are so few genuinely funny actors (ie. Sandra Bullock's piss poor attempt at slapstick in, "Ms. Congeniality". "Would someone please fire the casting director!? Who said she could act anyway?")
- NO remakes!! If you feel you must, proceed with great caution! IF DONE, they should be limited to the Sci-Fi, Action or Horror genre due to improved visual effects and the fact that very few in this genre are classified as "great films". If it's Comedy or Drama, chances are it won't be better than the original. (There are exceptions however, I'm sure the (2001?) remake of "Rollerball" was nowhere near as good as the original 1975 James Cann version.)
- NO "non-actor/famous person" cameos! The idea is that they're being themselves yet they always try an act and they usually suck.
- No obvious overuse of special effects!! "Bluescreen technology is great... yeah, yeah, we all like it... move on... how about focusing on your script or your casts' ability to act for a change!"
- NO 4 hour movies!! Keep it under 2 hours or make a sequal (my only ever movie theatre snooze occured while watching "Dune"). If you've more than one story to tell, tell one long one and show it at intervals. (A perfect example is the "Lord of The Rings"). If you attempt a second story sequal based on the financial success of the first (the premise for most sequals), like most sequals it's probably crap.
- NO actor redundancy!! Give us a break! Avoid the currently "most popular" actors as if they were the plague! If they're making another movie somewhere else, drop 'em like a hot rock! Know that eventually, these actors movie's will all hit the screens and networks at the same time and people such as myself will avoid turning on the tv for fear of knowing there's nothing on but Julia Roberts and Richard Gere flicks! Off the subject, Dale Gribble of, "King of the Hill" said it best when asked to comment on Julia Roberts appearance: "A horse is a horse, of course of course!" (Can you gather I don't like her?)
- NO inaccuracies!! If you can't recreate it acurately or convincingly... don't film it. I'm sure we all know some good examples of sad sets and poor location selection ("When Good Sets Go Bad!") For example, I didn't know there were pine trees in the jungles of Vietnam - perhaps there were. I wonder if that topic of conversation ever arose alongside the banks of the Chattahoochee river in Georgia during the filming of, "The Green Berets".
- NO product placement!! Nothing breaks the mood and reminds you it's nothing more than a movie than to see the obvious addition of that perfectly placed Pepsi can. Those people make enough damn money as it is! Tell them you refuse to advertise their cavity causing crap.
- NO TALKING ANIMALS!!! "Allah help me!! i'm so sick of talking animal commercials... please make it all go away".
Author Comments:
Howdy... this is my first post here at listology. Knowing little about movies, books, music, television, other or all, I decided to list my movie peeves. Feel free to add-on, as I need more excuses to avoid wasting money at the theatre on bad films and overpriced popcorn. I considered making a list of my "top 10 movie requirements" but all I could come up with was witticism and exotic nudity. Has anyone seen such a movie? If so, pass along the title... but only if there are no talking animals. Kev
Preach it, bruthah!
What a GREAT list!
How about no more movies based on TV shows? Although some are better than others, most aren't even as good as the TV show themselves, or based on lousy TV shows. Charlies Angel's S.W.A.T. Starskey and Hutch. What's next Sanford & Son and Mannix? Enough already, write original material.
I agree. If it was any good to begin with, it would have been a movie already. They're just thinking if we're stupid enough to watch it on TV, maybe we're stupid enough to PAY to watch it in a theatre.
Opposite is true of some movies. For example, a movie like Saw would have been better as an episode of the X-Files, instead of as a movie.
Hey Pivv...
What do you think about the idea of having them meet on screen? Ie. "Sanford & Son meet Mannix"? Or, Starsky & Hutch Duke it out with the boys of Hazzard county? It could be like back in the late 50's (correct era?) when Abbott & Costello were "meeting" all kinds of critters; Frankenstein, Wolfman, Dracula. Surely there'd be a market for just such encounters if it's gonna' be done anyway. I'd love to see the schitzonphrenic Robert Blake of today return as Baretta; instead of a cockatoo (dated) he'd probably have like a Koala bear or some shit. Maybe he and a Panda chasing down meth-labs... now that, i'd pay to see!
Great first list! I hope to see more from you!
Thanks jim... Great site you got here!
I'll do the best I can with what little I know.
(not necessarily in the order of importance)
One problem - LORD OF THE RINGS is a trilogy to begin with and the two 'sequels' are not technically sequels since all three were filmed at once.
This is true. Thank you for bringing this known fact to my attention. Unless you or another reader can offer up a genuinely decent movie sequal, you've proven there are NO quality sequals on the movie market.
I agree that they're rare, particularly when they're driven by the financial success of the original (as you note in your list). But here are some candidates for sequels that are actually superior. I can get on board with several of those, personally.
I think it's always important to acknowledge the fact that sequals are not only driven by the financial success of the original, but also riding on the coattails of the original story. That in itself (IMHO) throws much credit in the originals direction. That being the case, the original should always start the comparison with an advantage; which also (IMHO) requires the sequal to be considerably better than the original to give it the upperhand as well as "better movie" title.
Well, anybody who knows me can probably guess that I'm not very comfortable with that statement. I respect your view, of course, but I personally don't subscribe to any 'burden of proof' when it comes to aesthetic calls. :)
Besides, to some degree, your statement reflects today's 'franchise' mentality. First films in certain genres are created simply as expositions for future installments. Some sequels, especially earlier ones, are quite brilliant in how they take a story that doesn't really seem to beg a second part and create a plot that continues the original in new and novel ways. Terminator 2 certainly fits that bill (no one at the time was really planning the low-budget original to spawn sequels like it has), and Aliens, while I'd argue it isn't superior to the original, certainly was not a planned sequel. Bride of Frankenstein, with its black humor, certainly wasn't a 'natural' outgrowth of the original Frankenstein. These sequels were almost at a *dis*advantage continuing from the original movies.
My lunch break wanes, so I won't go on too much, but I think you can see what I'm saying, even if you don't agree.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
ALSO... I never said "Lord Of The Rings" was a good example of a good sequal, I said it was a good example of how to go about breaking up a long story.
Another No No: Singers turned actors; they are usually terible!
Thanks for bringing the obvious to the forefront pherber! I guess that probably should've been my #1 peeve or at least somewhere up top.( I hate pop singers more than I hate bad movies!) Unfortunately, thanks to the cell-phone craze and it's over-use by p re/post-pubescent female teens and their daily routine of incessant cackling regarding pop culture, i'm saddened to have to say that they're a huge driving force behind our current entertainment industry. Their ability to broadcast their desires via satel lite (while being monitored) will be the ultimate downfall of any male influenced culture. Prepare yourself for more Ricky Martins', Olsen twins, bad movies about cheerleaders and the death of the Hungry-Man tv dinner. It's all sushi, pea-pods and rice ca kes from here on out my friend. Keva
Well put!!!
Another really horrible thing is when they do they oppasite, and movie stars make records. It's even worse when the record reaches the top 10! (example: Hillary Duff)