www.411mania.com
|  News |  Film Reviews |  Columns |  DVD/Other Reviews |  News Report |
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// Mads Mikkelsen in Talks to Play Villain in Thor 2
MUSIC
// Kim Kardashian Shows Off Her Thick Figure With Kanye
WRESTLING
// Click HERE To Join 411’s LIVE IMPACT Wrestling Coverage
POLITICS
// Just Say No to the Police Using Drones
MMA
// UFC’s Roy Nelson Discusses King Mo, Possible Jump to WWE
GAMES
// New Transformers: Fall of Cybertron Featurette


MOVIE REVIEW  MOVIE REVIEWS
//  What to Expect When You're Expecting Review
//  Battleship Review [2]
//  Battleship Review
//  Dark Shadows Review
//  The Dictator Review
//  The Raven Review
 HOT MOVIES
//  The Dark Knight Rises
//  The Avengers
//  Prometheus
//  The Amazing Spider-Man
//  Iron Man 3
//  The Hobbit
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds





Follow 411mania on Twitter!




Add 411 On Facebook
 



 
 411mania » Movies » Columns



Advertisement
The 411 Movies Top 5 01.20.12: Week 305 - Top 5 Most Annoying Hollywood Trends
Posted by Trevor Snyder on 01.20.2012





I think it's safe to say those of us here at the Movies zone of 411 love Hollywood. But, you know how there are always those little things about the ones you love that just annoy the ever-loving shit out of you? Yeah, well, we have those with Hollywood. And that's why this week, Bryan Kristopowitz and I want to share what we believe are:

THE TOP 5 MOST ANNOYING TRENDS IN HOLLYWOOD





TREVOR SNYDER





5. Found-footage movies

I'm still not exactly sure how a piece of dreck like The Devil Inside had such a huge opening weekend, especially in a season where films like Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Adventures of Tintin all underperformed on their opening weekends. And sure, Devil Inside had a massive drop-off in its second week, spurned on by some of the most atrocious word-of-mouth ever, but that doesn't matter to Hollywood. They will only pay attention to that opening, which of course means we are in for even more of what has already become one of the most tired sub-genres in film history. I suppose I can live with a new Paranormal Activity every year (since even that series has only a few more years before it – like Saw before it – will start to lose steam). But it's the multitude of other found footage films that are started to overwhelm, particularly since none of them have anything new to offer. And how can they? The found footage film is, by design, one of the most self-limiting genres around, having to follow a very rigid set of guidelines in order to feel "real," which in turn also means they each feel exactly like the next one. It's time to give this one a rest for now.




4. 3D

This is a fairly obvious one, that I think just about everyone can agree on. Just like it always had before, 3D has quickly worn out its welcome, although this time Hollywood hasn't seemed to notice. To be fair, there have been some blockbusters that have benefited from the additional ticket prices, but let's not forget that just as many 3D films have also underperformed. And a lot of big filmmakers have finally started to come out in favor of good old fashioned, expressing what all of us already know – if a movie is good, it shouldn't matter if it's in 3D. But the demand for all blockbusters to be filmed this way isn't going away, and it's a concern that should be considered on a pure filmmaking level as well as just being the obvious gimmick it is. It's one thing if a director decides to do 3D himself (like James Cameron), but more often than not filmmakers are now being told by the studio that they need to make their film 3D, which means either they are forced to adopt a new shooting style that might limit their usual creative decisions or, even worse, they will simply film it however they want and then we end up with a crappy post-converted 3D film. Either way, we end up paying a fair amount more for a film that someday I'll watch on a 2D television anyway.




3. Rushed sequels

I understand the desire for franchises, and I'm certainly not above getting excited to see the next chapter in a favorite character's saga. But why does Hollywood seem to believe that I don't have any patience? Nowadays, sequels are being greenlit and rushed into production before the first film has even come out (as is the case with The Amazing Spider-Man). What's worse, these sequels are given release dates – usually about two years after the last movie – which they are then forced to rush to meet. This is a disturbing trend that can almost single-handily explain why so many sequels have failed to live up to their predecessors. This sort of turnaround doesn't give the studios and filmmakers enough time to really analyze just what it was about the first film that people actually liked and want to see more of. What's worse, it doesn't give them any time to figure out what didn't work, either. So we end up with sequels that are more-or-less carbon copies of the original, because that's really all they had the time to do. Why do we need these things so freaking fast? You know, I'm a patient guy. I think most are with me. I'd rather wait five or so years for a great sequel than be given a mediocre one in two. Slow down, Hollywood, allow your movies to exist out there in a public for awhile, and then get to work crafting the next one. We can wait.




2. Instant remakes of foreign films

Whether you liked David Fincher's version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or not, there's no denying that it exists for two reasons – 1) Because Hollywood can't stand the idea of not having the version of something, and 2) because a lot of Americans just won't watch a foreign film. Both of these statements are pretty sad, and both are responsible for this trend. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these remakes are always bad (as The Departed proved). But, usually, I can't help but wonder what the point is. Why does a movie like Let Me In need to exist when Let the Right One In was already so perfect? Why does The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo need a $90 million budget when the far cheaper Swedish film effectively told the same tale with much less? And now, with an American remake of Oldboy around the corner, it's clear that many don't agree with what it is that I think makes remakes so interesting in the first place – the idea of seeing generational re-tellings of the same story. Remakes work best when they come years after the original, allowing the tale to be updated with new filmmaking techniques and more modern sensibilities. When you remake something that is only a few years old, you're more likely than not going to end up with a movie that feels almost exactly the same as the original. I guess Hollywood thinks it's worth it because at least the audiences will check out the non-subtitled versions. But, personally, I find the whole thing kind of sad, especially since it also guarantees that the actors in the originals will never get their full due over here in America.




1. Terrible DVD cover art

I love DVDs. Even as things move over to streaming becoming the primary source of home entertainment, I'll never be able to give up collecting DVDs and Blu-rays. There's just something about actually having the item up there on your shelf, not to mention all the extras the format offers. And like any collector, I want my collection to look as nice as possible. Which is why I'm frustrated by the lack of effort that seems to go into designing most DVD covers these days. What really bothers me is when studios bypass perfectly good movie posters in favor of terrible Photoshop nightmare, as with the Drive artwork pictured above. Drive, my favorite film of last year, had a number of great posters (check out the more in-depth column I wrote on this issue for a reminder of some of them), but instead of using any of them Sony decided to go with this crap? And Drive isn't alone – go walk the aisles of your local DVD retailer and just take note of how many films are saddled with ridiculous covers that look like they were thrown together in a manner of minutes. Why do studios invest money in creating great theatrical one-sheets, only to then shit the bed when it comes to the home video release (which is what the movie's fans are going to be looking at for years to come?). And keep in mind, people are actually be paid to design these abominations. Meanwhile, a quick scan of various websites devoted to custom-made covers reveals that there are a lot of fans out there who can create better artwork for free. Can't the studios hire these people?



BRYAN KRISTOPOWITZ





5. Transcending the genre

People really need to stop trying to transcend the genre, regardless of the genre in question, because odds are they're going to fail. Instead of making a slasher movie, or some supernatural mumbo jumbo movie about demons and ghosts and whatnot, or just a straight up action movie with badass stunts and gunfights, so and so wants to make an action movie with a social conscience, or a slasher movie that's more than a slasher movie. And that ghost movie? It's really a statement against capitalism or atheism or whatever the hell the writer or director or actor is interested in. Please stop this bullshit. If you like action movies and want to make an action movie make a goddamn action movie. You don't need to add things to it. If you can and it somehow works, wonderful, but, please, don't set out to change the world. Learn how to kick ass first. If you can't kick ass no one is going to care.




4. Every big movie now has to be 3D

Yeah, I know, Hollywood is in the business of making money, but it would be nice if they didn't make it so goddamn obvious every once in a while. Because that's all 3D is now, a money making scheme. Oh, sure, people like established directors like Ridley Scott and Jim Cameron and, now, Martin Scorsese, are interested in what they can do with the technology on the artistic side of things, actually shooting their movies in 3D, but for every well made 3D movie they make there are oodles of big movies not originally shot in 3D getting "converted" into 3D just so audiences can be charged more to see it. And that's all it's about. It doesn't matter that those movies end up looking terrible. Of course, if audiences stop going to these shitty converted movies maybe Hollywood will stop making them. But then again, we're dealing with Hollywood here. Hollywood will stop making all 3D movies, not just the potentially bad ones.




3. The need for "trilogies"

Studios that want to set up franchises have to stop trying to force franchises on the movie going public. Studios should instead be in the business of making the best possible movie right now and then figuring out if audiences want to see another movie later. And if and when you do that, stop this "we're going to stop making them after part three" stuff, too. You're in the business of making money, right? If audiences are interested in seeing another movie, give it to them. So what if it's part 4? You've already made three good movies, one right after the other, and audiences showed up to see them. Give the audience what it wants. Drive it into the ground until audiences stop showing up. Why is that so hard to understand?




2. The end of home video

No, I'm not talking about the end of VHS, although I will admit to missing it. What I'm talking about here is the coming end of physical home video, DVDs and Blu-ray discs in favor of movies on-demand. Some of us are fighting against it, refusing to participate in streaming on demand and instead buying actual DVDs from actual stores, but we know that, eventually, actually owning a movie that sits in a box on a shelf will become a weird thing that no one does anymore because "there's no money in it." We're going to have to wait for the movie we want to see to show up on a list on a computer, and we're going to have to pay some mega conglomerate each time we want to watch that movie. And it's going to suck. Anyone else dreading this day?




1. The lack of actual B-Movies in theaters

With all of the movie theater screens we have in this country you'd think that more small movies would get wider play. You'd think that theater chains would want as many different kinds of movies to play on their screens to maximize their potential audience. But we don't see that. Instead of having twenty different movies playing at the mall at Cineplex 20, we have five big movies playing on four screens each. That's ridiculous. It's a waste of space. There are so many different kinds of movies out there, especially B-movies. Think of all of the small and low end mid-budget action movies and horror movies that would be a blast to see on the big screen (like a Stake Land or Hobo with a Shotgun). If you live in a big city you might get the chance to see a movie like that in an actual theater, but everywhere else you're going to have wait for DVD or HBO or, if you're lucky, Video on Demand. That's just not the same. Am I the only one thinking this?




Agree with our choices? Disagree? Be sure to share your thoughts and your own Top 5's below. And don't forget to include suggestions for future Top 5 columns...we're always looking for the next great list.

Till then, please check out my list of My Favorite Movies of 2011 as well as more of my movies reviews at Night of the Living Trev, my personal page.

See you next week with a brand new topic.


Post Comment (39)  |  Email Trevor Snyder  |  View Trevor Snyder's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (39)

 
I'd rather watch Blu-ray than a streaming movie...

Posted By: chAd_b (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 12:37 AM

 
 
I agree. Dont forget one of the worst travesties of all: F'n Remakes! only about 1 in 10 is good.

Posted By: truff (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 01:00 AM

 
 
I think the Dark Knight Rises doesn't really fit in with either of your points. Seeing as it's been nearly 4 years since TDK came out, and the anticipation is at a fever pitch because people do want to watch it. I get your point and agree, I just don't think it applies to TDKR

Posted By: Guest#6781 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 01:06 AM

 
 
Lack of B movies for the win!!!

Posted By: m_dawgy72 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 01:06 AM

 
 
I think you're lists are pretty spot on. Can't argue with any of the choices, however I take issue with one line Trevor said,
"Either way, we end up paying a fair amount more for a film that someday I'll watch on a 2D television anyway."
I'm not disagreeing with 3D on being on your list, and most of your points about 3D I agree with, but nothing is forcing you to see the 3D version of the movie. At least in the theaters I go to, there is always showings of the movie in 2D at the same time, so no one is making you spend extra money to see it in 3D. If you don't want to see it in 3D and spend the extra money, then go to the 2D version. Besides for that minor point, both of the lists are good.


Posted By: Jimjoebob (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 01:21 AM

 
 
Slasher movie that's more than a slasher movie: Scream. Fuck you.

Posted By: Law (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 01:48 AM

 
 
Nice lists! Remakes piss me off the most. I hate how all the cool horror and cult films from the 70s that got bashed by critics and studios back then are remade these days by the big studios. It cracks me up, but it also pisses me off because people will primarily refer to the remake. I hate every time someone talks about Dawn of the Dead with me, 99% of the time it's the remake! I prefer the original! Hills Have Eyes? Oh, the remake of course is talked about. Annoys the hell out of me.

One that I would include in a list or an honorable mention is PG 13 movies. I used to look forward to movies at theaters for years because of how awesome they were and most of them were R-rated. Nowadays, it's PG 13 everywhere to get the kiddies in. American mainstream movies lack any guts in producing R-rated movies these days. So glad I collect independent and foreign movies!


Posted By: cdunc83 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 02:36 AM

 
 
I'm with Trevor 100%

But I'd change number 1 to CGI.

The rule of thumb should be if a stunt man can do it, then fucking let him...and if a stunt man can't do...then maybe it will look retarded when generated by a CPU.


Posted By: Guest#0902 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 02:38 AM

 
 
Number 1 on my list would be that they are remaking EVERYTHING!!! So what Hollywood is telling us is that nobody has talent to write in today's world and can come up with new ideas. How sad.

Posted By: Dan Baltrusis (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 02:44 AM

 
 
I can understand the point about trilogies, but I think the positive part about ending at #3 is to end strong or finish up before the audience gets turned off. Too bad that, with Batman, those movies are planned to be rebooted after the third installment (Spider-Man was the first to feel that blow).

Posted By: Guest#5662 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 03:14 AM

 
 
MOst of the bad trends can be summed up with the fact that someone thinks if it worked before it will work again and again. Sad thing is,it usually does. So we get crap now. I now know why i got into indy films.

Posted By: Guest#0957 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 03:39 AM

 
 
I think the Dark Knight Rises doesn't really fit in with either of your points. Seeing as it's been nearly 4 years since TDK came out, and the anticipation is at a fever pitch because people do want to watch it. I get your point and agree, I just don't think it applies to TDKR

Posted By: Guest#6781 (Guest) on January 20, 2012 at 01:06 AM

I fucking hate Nolan and Bales bat voice makes my ears bleed. Tim Burton should get with Paul Dini and create a real masterpiece.


Posted By: Guest#2142 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 04:41 AM

 
 
How about a lack of originality?

Posted By: Mike Dino (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 05:27 AM

 
 
@ Trevor- I don't think 3D itself is an 'obvious gimmick', it's just that most people only use it as a gimmick (there is a difference). When used properly, 3D can be a fantastic filmmaking tool that genuinely enhances the experience and the cinematography, but hardly anyone uses it properly these days. I think, as Bryan explained, it's a case of 'don't hate the player, hate the game'.

However, I agree 100% that post-edited 3D remakes (The Lion King, Star Wars etc), and studios who force the filmmakers to use 3D no matter what, can both go and eat a dick. 3D should only be used by filmmakers who choose to use it, and only for films shot with 3D cameras. Anything else is a waste.

I'm also not sure why some of these pictures were chosen. I think you could have chosen a better example for 'the need for trilogies', because the Batman trilogy has appeared to be very organic and appropriate so far. That is, they appeared to make the films without specifically aiming for a trilogy (unlike some films which are planned to be trilogies even before they start shooting the first one), and the third film is continuing an unfinished story (whereas some films try to tack stuff onto a closed ending). I also wouldn't consider Iron Man 2 to be a rushed sequel, let alone a mediocre one. I thought it was an excellent sequel, and it took, what, three years after the first one? Not a good example.

One other trend I'd like to add is "Edgy, 'modern' remakes of fairy tales". It started with Red Riding Hood, and we're now getting Jack and the Beanstalk, Hansel and Gretal, TWO different versions of Snow White, and surely more to come. Even Grimm (the TV show) is guilty of this.


Posted By: Guest#2469 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 05:46 AM

 
 
Someone should have mentioned Hollywood taking a subject and pissing all over it by making it something it's not.

Posted By: JAK (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 05:58 AM

 
 
I think you're lists are pretty spot on. Can't argue with any of the choices, however I take issue with one line Trevor said,
"Either way, we end up paying a fair amount more for a film that someday I'll watch on a 2D television anyway."
I'm not disagreeing with 3D on being on your list, and most of your points about 3D I agree with, but nothing is forcing you to see the 3D version of the movie. At least in the theaters I go to, there is always showings of the movie in 2D at the same time, so no one is making you spend extra money to see it in 3D. If you don't want to see it in 3D and spend the extra money, then go to the 2D version. Besides for that minor point, both of the lists are good.

Posted By: Jimjoebob (Guest) on January 20, 2012 at 01:21 AM

I try to do this myself whenever possible. However, where I'm from, they only show the 2D and 3D version of a movie if they anticipate it being huge, or, if they even have it to begin with. Off the top of my head I had to see Conan, Avatar, and the last Pirates movie in 3D because there was only the 3D option.


Posted By: Guest101 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 07:40 AM

 
 
1 - Ryan Reynolds allowed to keep making movies

Posted By: Guest#7810 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 07:48 AM

 
 
I think the Dark Knight Rises doesn't really fit in with either of your points. Seeing as it's been nearly 4 years since TDK came out, and the anticipation is at a fever pitch because people do want to watch it. I get your point and agree, I just don't think it applies to TDKR

Posted By: Guest#6781 (Guest) on January 20, 2012 at 01:06 AM

Wrong. People want to see it because they've been conditioned to think they want to see it. The series has been average overall, just a corporate version of Burton's interpretations, and nobody has managed to capture the essence of what Frank Miller achieved in the books. Nolan's films are incredibly pretentious and this next instalment will be no different - all hype and no substance, like everything Hollywood spews out.


Posted By: Nutter (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 08:10 AM

 
 
Whats wrong with streaming a blue ray movie? besides The feds shutting it down the site that is....

Posted By: Smarky Smark (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 08:18 AM

 
 
Didn't Drive have Christina Hendricks in it, at least for a little bit? Put her on the cover art. That would help it sell in the bazillions.

Posted By: Zingy (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 08:40 AM

 
 
How is TDKR anything other than a wanted and highly sought sequel I'd never know.

Posted By: Guest#6073 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 08:42 AM

 
 
Two-part final installments. The two I know of was two too many.

Posted By: Phil (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 08:44 AM

 
 
What the fuck is a "found footage movie"?

Posted By: Guest#6296 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 09:23 AM

 
 
Kryspo's #5 is the worst of the lot.

Genre and deeper meanings go together and have since the beginning....

BEFORE Rod Serling used Sci-Fi in the Twilight Zone to point out political inequality it went back to Verne who did much the same and hell-- you could argue this trope goes all the way bake to Beowulf or Gilgamesh.

Fail


Posted By: Guest#1276 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 09:59 AM

 
 
BRYAN KRISTOPOWITZ
if you believe in your list then you are not allowed to watch Dark Knight Rises.


Posted By: wylun (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM

 
 
1. Blaming Piracy for downed revenues.

Posted By: The Rev (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM

 
 
Breaking long movies into separate halves released months apart. I'm willing to sit through a four hour film if it is well made.

B-movies in theatres would be great, I guess the home video market killed that off nearly 30 years ago. We used to have 2 theatre chains that showed difffent movies with no cross over between them. Then one day they started showing the same films. Went from 50 movies playing on a few screens each to the same 10 playing on 30 screens.


Posted By: Guest#4925 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM

 
 
Pretty sure Tim Burton hasn't made one decent movie. They're all utter crap. Most movie trilogies are excellent so that doesn't count. B Movies don't get played in cinema because they aren't high profile enough, don't have any good actors in them and won't make any money.

Making every movie into 3D is easily the worst trend. Remakes of perfect movies is 2nd. The problem with Iron Man 2 is that the first one is so fantastic that we think it's shit when it's actually not that bad.


Posted By: Ryan Haseldine (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM

 
 
Wrong. People want to see it because they've been conditioned to think they want to see it. The series has been average overall, just a corporate version of Burton's interpretations, and nobody has managed to capture the essence of what Frank Miller achieved in the books. Nolan's films are incredibly pretentious and this next instalment will be no different - all hype and no substance, like everything Hollywood spews out.

Posted By: Nutter (Guest) on January 20, 2012 at 08:10 AM
----------------------
Um....buh? I'm not saying you or anyone can't hate TDKR, but your reasoning is a little weird. Hollywood isn't necessarily pulling the strings going "You want to like this movie....you are excited for this movie!" People voted their confidence for this movie with their wallets. You would think if they didn't like it, they would, you know, not go see it...


Posted By: Anonymous (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 10:30 AM

 
 
Agree with the lack of B movies. B movies are the ones I like the most. Stake Land, Tucker and Dale, Attack the Block, I would have loved to see those in a theater. But I had to wait for them to come out on blu ray.

One of my pet peeves is PG-13 horror movies. That's one of the things I check for now. Horror should always be R.


Posted By: jon (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM

 
 
To just say trilogies is stupid.
Some stories need to be told a length.
Trilogy method is perfect; movie 1, establish your protagonist, movie 2, allow protagonist to do what he/she does (ass kicking, crime solving, being awesome at whatever), movie 3, big blow off.

Now, there are bad trilogies. Tons of them. But to say trilogies as a whole is just silly.

I would combine "rushed sequels" with "rushe trilogies". One in the same really. Cheap paydays = / = good movies.


Posted By: MPMoore (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 10:49 AM

 
 
Agree on everything here. 3D and Found Footage... drives me insane.
I get irate at the thought of streaming only, mainly because I dont have very fast internet in my area, and its technology once again costing jobs so major corporations make save a buck.
There are 3 mega movie plexes in a 3 mile radius 25 miles from where I live, and all 3 pretty much play the same movies. FFS, get some B-movies, small release flicks, a horror fest or have a retro night once a week playing something old. Its all digital, break the mold and do something different. I
always thought if I came into money, I would reopen the tiny theater in my neighborhood and have horror flicks, grind house, B movies, Rocky Horror and old school classics. Encourage cos-play, take requests and what not and make an event out of it.


Posted By: APrince66 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM

 
 
I try to do this myself whenever possible. However, where I'm from, they only show the 2D and 3D version of a movie if they anticipate it being huge, or, if they even have it to begin with. Off the top of my head I had to see Conan, Avatar, and the last Pirates movie in 3D because there was only the 3D option.

Posted By: Guest101 (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 07:40 AM

Well, I stand corrected and I apologize. I didnt realize there theaters that didn't give you a choice, so I take back what I said.


Posted By: Jimjoebob (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM

 
 
Wrong. People want to see it because they've been conditioned to think they want to see it. The series has been average overall, just a corporate version of Burton's interpretations, and nobody has managed to capture the essence of what Frank Miller achieved in the books. Nolan's films are incredibly pretentious and this next instalment will be no different - all hype and no substance, like everything Hollywood spews out.

Posted By: Nutter (Guest) on January 20, 2012 at 08:10 AM


Speaking of being pretentious... good god, you sound like an ass.

I want to see it because I want to see it. I think the series has been great so far.


Posted By: Scott B (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM

 
 
Just wait till Hollywood decides to do 3D found footage movies...

Posted By: Desmondo (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 01:09 PM

 
 
Wrong. People want to see it because they've been conditioned to think they want to see it. The series has been average overall, just a corporate version of Burton's interpretations, and nobody has managed to capture the essence of what Frank Miller achieved in the books. Nolan's films are incredibly pretentious and this next instalment will be no different - all hype and no substance, like everything Hollywood spews out.

Posted By: Nutter (Guest) on January 20, 2012 at 08:10 AM

"WHAT ARE YOU?!?!?"

"I'm Troll-Man."

I too disagree with this. When I first saw "Batman Begins", I went into the theater expecting it to completely suck, as I suspected the series had gone to hell thanks to "Batman and Robin". I had never seen a Nolan movie, nor was ever planning on it at the time. So I went into the experience with expectations in the gutter.

I came out thoroughly and completely impressed, salivating for the assured sequel. "The Dark Knight" basically kept me in fight-or-flight mode the entire movie. I recently went to the new "Mission: Impossible" movie, pretty much with the sole intention of seeing the IMAX preview for "The Dark Night Rises" (although I ended up loving MI4).

Sorry to say, but there are MANY people that are seeing these movies because they genuinely enjoy them, and not because they are being CONDITIONED to believe that they enjoy them.


Posted By: Knutcase (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 01:09 PM

 
 
Maybe this should be added to the 3D gripe: a hugely annoying trend is the constant use of hand held camera. There are lots of people (including me)who can't watch this type of filming -- it makes use sick. Can't tell you how many movies I've ended up listening to while trying not to be ill. It would be nice to have some sort of symbol (maybe HHC?)in the ads to alert potential viewers.

Posted By: Guest (Guest)  on January 20, 2012 at 02:35 PM

 
 
Keep in mind that the Big studios used to milk products and characters for everything. The Thin Man series, Martin and Lewis and even musicals were rushed into the theatres due to striking while the iron was hot and the If It Ain't Broke Copy It Over And Over. Sucks I know.

Posted By: Eric (Guest)  on January 21, 2012 at 02:29 PM

 
 
I hate 3D films...but they don't bother me because I just watch everything in 2D.

Remakes don't bother me because if I love the original it's still just as good and if I haven't seen the original the remake usually makes me want to see it. I don't need other people to agree with me so I don't care if people like a remake more. Most of the remake hate is just people wanting everyone to not have an option to like a different movie from the one they like. Without remakes Let Me In and True Grit would not exist and that would suck.

Never liked found-footage movies either...so I just don't watch them.


Posted By: Bender (Guest)  on January 23, 2012 at 09:01 PM

 


www.41mania.com
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.