what kind of movies irritate you

rambling man

Somewhat Deadly
Joined
May 16, 2001
Posts
1,558
This kind of is an outgrowth of the JPIII thread

Romantic comedies irritate me just on principle...they roll out a new Julia Roberts movie each summer..this year it looks like they think Richard Gere is too old so now they are hooking her up with younger guys...so irritating

The point of this for me is that movies about subjects irritate the specialists in that field. I saw where the paleontologists pulled their hair out over Jurassic Park. History movies that ignore the history they supposedly portray irk me to no end...

Gladiator....real names but that is where the history ends...the rest of the story is all made up even if the details conform to reality in some ways

Patriot....where did the British get the SS officer from? There were many many more atrocities committed by the rebels than the British. Tarring and feathering is torture no matter how light history makes it look

Gettysburg....only thing that bothered me were the fat guys in the Army of Northern Virginia. How do you keep the weight on when marching for hundreds of miles?...rest was really cool

Pearl Harbor....first hour of this was one of the worst movies I had ever seen, rest was one of the best...the director tried to work a romantic comedy into a war flick...he should be shot at dawn....i can see why he tried to be different, though....Tora Tora Tora was a masterpiece..he just should have stayed with the idea of focussing on the characters and left out the romance......in addition, they make women look incredibly stupid in that first part..if i were a feminist, i'd be pissed
 
Any more they all do. Except Rowdy Roddy Piper movies. you always get exactly what you paid for.
 
films that could of been really good but arent

films that dont even try JPIII :)

but worst of all and quite seriously is when war films are made based on truth but vital bits of history are changed i think this is completely disrespectful ... the submarine one where they changed the crew to be american ... the colditz (opps spelling) film about americans escaping colditz when no americans ever did


why do they do this i dont know ... if they want to make a war film and for it to be about americans pick something the americans did or make a fictional film ... dont take a true story and just swap the characters around (this should of been in my pet peeve page thread) :)


how would you americans like it if the russians made a film about them being the first to land on the moon and they potrayed it as a true story :)
 
i'm with you 100% sexy girl..they say who does it hurt, but then the high school history teachers show them as real history to their classes
 
Well, as far as that particular example is concerned, there were real American incidents to base the sub film on, but the actual first incident was British, and is historically important.

And as disrespectful as that might have been (and I go back and forth on that) it's quite different fromt he Moon landing scenario.

The key to fictionalization of historic events is just how much an audience actually knows. EVERYONE knows about the Americans on the moon, so the analogy isn't right. In the case of the sub film I think it turned out that more people knew about the British event than the producers realized.

Shakespeare got away with his St. Crispin's speech in "Henry V" because no one really knows what was said that day, despite the fact that Agincourt was well known history. That's an example of a good bastardization of history. Naming a movie "Krakatoa: East of Java" when Krakatoa is WEST of Java, well, that's an example of really not putting enough historical eggs in your basket and treating the audience like idiots.

I have a screenplay I'm working on that involves a little known (British) event of WWII, and I have already decided to fictionalize the characters. They're still British, and the story will still be accurate, but the actual men are not well enough known, historically, for me to work with. So I'm going to have to make some shit up.

That's the way it is in any historical film. It's just how MUCH shit you make up that's the problem.
 
Lifetime movies seriously irritate me.
Why do women put up with this low level crap?
 
i agree DCL i was exgarrating slightly with the mood landing :) but your point is right its worse beacuse alot of the details they change are unknown to most people


its perfectly fair to fictionalize characters or films when details are unknown ... its when they change the facts which they know about that i dislike


good luck with your screen play may i ask which event you are basing it on :) or dont you want to give it away
 
Can't give it away. But it's not Dunkirk, D-Day, The Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Bulge, A Bridge Too Far or the Bridge on the River Kwai.
 
hehe good luck anyway

my grand dad is potrayed in the film the longist day :) he in the film for about 1min but its still a pretty important bit
 
I hate chick flicks, bad historical films like that U boat film where all the Brits were replaced with Americans just so they could get a bigger audiance, I tell ya it's a damn slap in the face for a British servicemen who served in WW2, I mean how would you guys feel if a Brit film company made "The Sands of Iwa jima"(sp) with British Marines instead of USMC troop's, pretty fucking insulted I bet.

I also hate any movie where a good guy beats a bad guy and leaves the gun behind, thats just an insulte to your intellect.
 
And another thing I really hate it when people post to a thread without reading whats been said before......Ooop's
 
LOL

I know, I know, but like I said, there were American/U Boat encoutners, and cyphering material was taken. So there is a fudge factor here. Iwo Jima is still not a good analogy. I'm not saying the producers didn't screw up (they did), but we're talking about degrees of screw up here. If you keep it in perpective you can more easily see why they felt there was no harm in what they did.
 
Wow, that submarine thing really pissed you Brits off didn't it? :D Don't worry, I'd be pissed off too.

I can't believe nobody has said stupid teen movies. I mean, what group of movies can be more despised than this. Especially those romantic comedies. I hate romantic comedies to begin with, but when you put Freddie Prinze Jr. in one, it really sinks to a new low. Barf, just barf.
 
i havent seen the film (refuse to watch it hehe) but the incident they potray is finding the code breaking machine which led to the british people cracking the inigma code ... argueable the turning point of the war ... if the film potrays that then its pretty bad to make out americans did that


however if they didnt mention anything about the inigma code i guess it wouldnt be as bad ... so do they or dont they :) ?


:) hehe i dislike teen comedys too like american pie and spoofy things like scary movie .... but i guess i dont have a huge kind of loathing towards them there just not my sort of movies
 
Dixon Carter Lee said:
LOL

I know, I know, but like I said, there were American/U Boat encoutners, and cyphering material was taken. So there is a fudge factor here. Iwo Jima is still not a good analogy. I'm not saying the producers didn't screw up (they did), but we're talking about degrees of screw up here. If you keep it in perpective you can more easily see why they felt there was no harm in what they did.

Hey Dix don't you ever read your PM's.

BTW if you took all the really shitty bit's in film's like the good guy gun thing I said and stuck them altogether you'd ahve to makings of a good script for a movie......just like they did with "Scary movie" and "Kentucy fried movie", when you write it I'll help and only charge 10% comish.
 
What irritates me

REALLY SAPPY MOVIES!!!!!! I don't mind movies like "Titanic" because most of the stuff was historically accurate. PLUS, Kate Winslett NUDE!!!!!!
 
Hello people, these are movies we are talking about here. Movies are a form of entertainment and of course they aren't going to get every single historical detail correct. If you want a history lesson, go read a fucking book and stop complaining.
 
Unregistered said:
Hello people, these are movies we are talking about here. Movies are a form of entertainment and of course they aren't going to get every single historical detail correct. If you want a history lesson, go read a fucking book and stop complaining.

LOL, you think "this" is complaining, you should see us really get down to it.
 
I agree with OUTSIDER!!!!

Movies are just forms of entertainment. I personally LOVE true stories, but "Pearl Harbor" was JUST TO SAPPY!!!!!!!!!! I didn't even think the action sequences were all that interesting.
 
i saw that movie you were talking about...it irritated me that they were Americans and i am an american..and the fact that people cant get their history staright does detract from the entertainment value of the movie.....the story is good enough to stand on its own without hollywood tweaking a little or lying a lot

the action sequences in PH were pretty good i thought..but the sands of iwo jima was better, mostly because they actually used real footage
 
I hate movies which are inferior remakes of classic films....why bastardise a good film?!?!

But the movie that I hate the most is Good Will Hunting......
 
movies that i hate are bad romance movies . i'll sit through a bad comedy , a bad action movie , a bad drama . but if it is a bad romance movie (and i know you all have seen a few). theni'd sooner put my foot through the screen than sit and watch it .

movies like:

Ever After with dreww barrymoore....yuck!
Bounce with ben affleck and gwenneth paltrow
Sweet November with CharlizeTheron and Keanu Reeves

i know all you fellas who've had to sit through these crapfests with your girl are feelin my pain!!
 
Back
Top