Why Movies Suck Today ?

Kitty
Wow Lex; that's really something.

Lex
Wait for it.
Pause

Nothing happens

Kitty
Wow Lex, that's really something.

She was also the only highlight of Scream 3 & Blade: Trinity

I'd say it's better than the sequel by far. The premise is absurdly impossible, of course, but there are days when I've believed seven impossible things before breakfast.

<_< I thought The Patriot was a really well done movie myself. >_>

That aside, will have to agree with you on the villains motivations in the new Trek. The villain was insane. His motivation was wanting revenge for a slight that never happened.

the failing in this, is that original Spock blamed himself as well (he is half human), and maybe the director should of had Kirk be the one to step up and say as such, "Nero. You're family died due to a natural disaster! Now you go about killing everyone, because you can't blame anyone for it! But guess what, I can blame you for killing my father. Fire all lasers!"

To da!

That said, quite enjoyed the new Star Trek movie myself, with my only complaint being that Kirk's turn on the Kobiashi Ma'Ru was better done in the books. In this movie it sucked in comparrison.

To the OP, most movies are a personal taste thing to begin with. But, I think I can tell you why a lot of movies are considered failings in your eyes (personally, I like some of these movies people consider bad)...

1) Greed.

Movies can make some serious money! The problem is, before the actors and everyone else would work their butts off, while those producing the movies made all the money.

Pay the actors/crews the equivalent of say 50k total, then get a return of 1million in profit. Made up numbers for sure, but the principle is there. Actors started realizing the producers were getting all the money, while they were doing the work.

Then, the producers had to start doing things to make sure they got a return in their investment, less and less risk taking. Which to be fair isn't bad on their part, but it's going to see retreds in a lot of things.

And like stated in a previous post, they didn't see why the big movies succeeded. Avatar didn't succeed because it was 3D. It's 3D helped make it succeed because DAMN, that 3D put you into the movie. It didn't just do OMGWTF MISSILE TO THE FACE! It did, OMG It's raining ash around everyone! OMG it looks like I'm actually RIGHT THERE IN THE FRIKKIN BASE!

Basically, it did everything with it's 3D that every other movie has been afraid to do, since you know, it'll cost MORE money and be riskier to make back a profit.

2) Political Correctness.

PCness just ruins everything.

I have to disagree!

Superman doing the Superman deeds was very redeeming to the movie imo.

Flying through the city, laser beaming all the glass, lifting the ship, lifting the island (even if it had all that kryptonite), saving the plane and shuttle, all that was VERY Superman and very entertaining.

Basically, Superman being Superman.

Any merit that movie had was countered by being too damn similar to the first Donner film. If you watch that then Superman Returns, it's just unforgivable.

I still dig the movie. I don't see why it gets the flak it does.

As for why movies suck, because some folks make bad movies. Always have, always will. And if you think there are no good movies, you're either way too uptight, or you just aren't looking and just like to *****.

Oh, I grasp it, all too easily infact. It's just hard to imagine someone expecting to be taken seriously when they offer somthing like this up as an underpining of their argument.

*looks up the thread at Smersh*

Ahh good, I wasn't the only one who noticed this.

You can get no better example of this being horrifyingly true than being lucky enough to be in a market with a new, low-budget upstart station or a "emergency weather station" that ony broadcasts the weather when warnings and watches are in effect and uses filler the rest of the time.

Occasionally, they'll luck into some long forgotten gem or some old movie that was good but never gained (or lost) traction in the popular culture. The vast majority of the time, they're showing back to back to back films that were as cheap to screen as possible and that means the dregs of a century of filmmaking from 70s exploitation films that failed when they were originally made to films from the 30s and 40s that no one remembers for a good reason.

The thing about classic films is WHY they're classic films. In some cases, yes, it is an elitist thing, but usually it's because of what the film did at the time it was made.

A good example is Citizen Kane. It is a classic, incredibly important film for good reason. It did things that had never been done in film before it was made but were quickly adopted across the industry and are still staples in films today, especially when it comes to cinematography. To the average viewer watching it today it seems a rather dated, long, slowly paced movie that is often said to be boring and typically sparks the question "why is this the big deal people say it is?" Without a fairly solid background in film and film history its importance and its place as a classic is lost.

In time there will be modern films that fall into this same mode of thinking. Off the top of my head, I predict Toy Story will be one because it was the first computer animated film that got everything "right" even though it already looks somewhat primative in comparison to more recent films. Avatar will likely be the same for similar reasons (pioneering new filmmaking technologies and methods). It's difficult to predict which films will have both film history importance AND pop appeal 30 to 50 years in the future but it is an even bet to say that some of them will have one or both.

It was melodramatic, but a fairly good movie in my opinion.


Its not elaborated upon, but Nero blames Spock for not saving Romulus. The question is whether Spock is really to blame. We don't see the full details in the movie, but he would be at least partially, if he actually gave personal assurances before fully appreciating what he was promising and then having it all go south. Which the movie seems to imply he did, and which is also something Spock has done before.

Once Nero was trapped in the past, I'm sure crazy or not the first thing he would have done is try to take stock, figure out where and when he was, and get some background on what just happened. He must have realized he destroyed a Federation starship in the past which would have potentially serious consequences for the future. And that might have been when he was inspired to think "well, if I'm already back here screwing with the future, I might as well make it one where the Romulans don't all die in a supernova explosion." Its less a plan, and more of a situational opportunity.

In terms of what could possibly motivate Nero to take the actions he tries to take, crazy or not, the obvious one to me has always been that Nero is trying to reconcile the death of his wife, along with most of his species. Like many people strickened with grief, he wants to believe there was some meaning or purpose to that tragedy. And when he finds himself in the past, he concludes that the purpose to that tragedy was to give him an opportunity to do something great in the past, like "destroy the Federation and set the Romulan empire on a path to supremacy." His actions had to be grand and dramatic and really over the top, because in his mind only that kind of act would make it all worth it.

They gave the villain a lazy motive. They put no work in the story. Thats the bottomline. And they passed it off like it was ok which insulted my intelligence.


Nothing wrong with jingoism. Plus the Patriot was fun to watch dispite historical inaccuracies.

To me this sums up the essentials of why the thread's premise is superficial, shortsighted and narrowminded. Later posts reinforced that studying history is useless if you refuse to allow it to broaden your perspective or even learn from studying history. (Or the present.) i really wish that had come as a surprise, but extolling jingoism as a virtue basically confirms that there is nothing useful there.

Some of the other posts are interesting, but i've come to realize that at least one poster has nothing to offer, except perhaps to serve as an object lesson: "Hey kids, this is ignorance by choice looks like. It's almost impossible to ameliorate and will happily advocate pain and suffering for anyone who differs with great pride and satisfaction. Try not to be like that."

Carry on.

You do not even know what the word ignorance means chief. "Oh yeah, New Dark Age does not share my pacifistic, liberal views....he must be ignorant........aka not neutered. He should be neutered like me and like these new spiritless, politically correct, emasculate movies otherwise we will him call him, backwards, unenlightened and ignorant. Not like New Dark Age's views are reinforced by historical precedents such as the logic of Patriarchal societies in building civilizations by use of violence."

You keep the new age "sensitive man" philosophy. I will keep my set chief.

I believe Wil Wheaton put it much more succinctly: "Don't be a dick".

I'd love to believe that young people who are being willfully ignorant will eventually grow out of it as they gain ever more experience from life and its diversity, but the sad reality is that most humans close their minds to new ideas usually by about the time they finish high school. Unless they go to college; but that just postpones their inevitable dogmatic stubbornness by about four to ten years.

" This is what not being neutered is like."

No weirder than it started out, really. Before editing, the OP indirectly made it clear that functional male genitalia were essential to knowing/making good movies. The references to neutering merely continue that opinion trend.

Did he really imply as such? That's not only crass, but also rather clumsily misogynistic.

I might have said that. Not sure although I do not remember talking about that in my initial post.

Careful...some people here might call you ignorant : P

And this means what?
In your own words:
So I should believe the comments of 2 million stupid people?

What do non-functional male genitalia lead to? Cutthroat Island?

Plus, the notion of Saving Private Ryan being an "emasculating" movie is a level of cognitive dissonance comparable to calling Troll 2 "Shakespearean." Does it focus on the players rather than battlefield sets? Sure. Is that a modern conceptualization? Hardly. You can see that sort of thing going as far back as you like in well respected movies. Das Boot, for example, from 1981. The Dirty Dozen, 1967. The Bridge on the River Kwai from 1957. All Quiet on the Western Front from 1930.

Do movies like this "over" dramatize? That's somewhat a matter of personal taste. Even Schindler's List was criticized by some Holocaust survivors for being too simplistic in its melodrama. However, while I would never tell a Holocaust survivor what to think about a movie about the Holocaust, nevertheless I would disagree and the vast majority of people including other survivors seem to disagree as well. You can't prove something is too much or too little something subjective, but that's not the same thing from recognizing when one's preferences clearly are just that: preferences without objective foundation that is stronger than any other.