Jim Carey
Feel free to flame but I f*cking HATE him…and everyone that insists on casting him
[quote]Ulty wrote:
Characters escaping by jumping into a body of water, no matter from what height, without injury.
[/quote]
True!
On top of that, you’d think that with today’s technology they could make a dummy that looks like a real person in a free-fall.
[quote]Gym Savvy wrote:
Jim Carey
Feel free to flame but I f*cking HATE him…and everyone that insists on casting him[/quote]
X2. He’s about as funny as stomach cancer.
Attempts to make period correct movies while trying to be politically correct…That’s really annoying. You’re in a bar in 1940’s and nobody is smoking? Really?
[quote]pat wrote:
Attempts to make period correct movies while trying to be politically correct…That’s really annoying. You’re in a bar in 1940’s and nobody is smoking? Really? [/quote]
Haha! True.
I also hate when a period piece can’t be factual about hairstyles. “Dances With Wolves” comes to mind… Costner and that ridiculous blow-dried mullet.
Almost every vintage photo I’ve ever seen of men from the Civil War years and onward had fuckin’ greasy hair (well, except maybe for Andrew Jackson…LOL).
And how about Mel Gibson’s idiotic long locks as he portrayed William Wallace?
However I did notice that Brad Pitt nearly got it right when portraying Jesse James.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Attempts to make period correct movies while trying to be politically correct…That’s really annoying. You’re in a bar in 1940’s and nobody is smoking? Really? [/quote]
Haha! True.
I also hate when a period piece can’t be factual about hairstyles. “Dances With Wolves” comes to mind… Costner and that ridiculous blow-dried mullet.
Almost every vintage photo I’ve ever seen of men from the Civil War years and onward had fuckin’ greasy hair (well, except maybe for Andrew Jackson…LOL).
And how about Mel Gibson’s idiotic long locks as he portrayed William Wallace?
However I did notice that Brad Pitt nearly got it right when portraying Jesse James. [/quote]
Stop trying to bash people with good hair, everybody knows your hair is more beautiful anyway, you don’t have to take them down a peg to prove it.
[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Attempts to make period correct movies while trying to be politically correct…That’s really annoying. You’re in a bar in 1940’s and nobody is smoking? Really? [/quote]
Haha! True.
I also hate when a period piece can’t be factual about hairstyles. “Dances With Wolves” comes to mind… Costner and that ridiculous blow-dried mullet.
Almost every vintage photo I’ve ever seen of men from the Civil War years and onward had fuckin’ greasy hair (well, except maybe for Andrew Jackson…LOL).
And how about Mel Gibson’s idiotic long locks as he portrayed William Wallace?
However I did notice that Brad Pitt nearly got it right when portraying Jesse James. [/quote]
Stop trying to bash people with good hair, everybody knows your hair is more beautiful anyway, you don’t have to take them down a peg to prove it.[/quote]
LOL! Thanks… but my long hair is now history (pun intended).
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Attempts to make period correct movies while trying to be politically correct…That’s really annoying. You’re in a bar in 1940’s and nobody is smoking? Really? [/quote]
Haha! True.
I also hate when a period piece can’t be factual about hairstyles. “Dances With Wolves” comes to mind… Costner and that ridiculous blow-dried mullet.
Almost every vintage photo I’ve ever seen of men from the Civil War years and onward had fuckin’ greasy hair (well, except maybe for Andrew Jackson…LOL).
And how about Mel Gibson’s idiotic long locks as he portrayed William Wallace?
However I did notice that Brad Pitt nearly got it right when portraying Jesse James. [/quote]
Stop trying to bash people with good hair, everybody knows your hair is more beautiful anyway, you don’t have to take them down a peg to prove it.[/quote]
LOL! Thanks… but my long hair is now history (pun intended).
[/quote]
Ah I see, it’s jealousy then!
Sad to hear it, I hope you got a good price for that pelt!
Rambette.
The female lead who can whup the ass off of anybody she crosses – and must, to prove how tough she is, thoroughly trounce at least one male who has a hundred pounds of muscle mass on her, and has received similarly formidable training. Additionally, she must do so without breaking a sweat, getting her immaculate make-up smeared or perfect hair put even the slightest out of place, and ideally shouldn’t even wrinkle her clothes. Extra points if she acts like a really awful overly-macho archetype with dialogue that would have people rolling their eyes if spoken by a male.
It was awesome when Linda Hamilton did it in T2 because it was new and innovative. Now it’s just a tired cliche.
[quote]Northcott wrote:
Rambette.
The female lead who can whup the ass off of anybody she crosses – and must, to prove how tough she is, thoroughly trounce at least one male who has a hundred pounds of muscle mass on her, and has received similarly formidable training. Additionally, she must do so without breaking a sweat, getting her immaculate make-up smeared or perfect hair put even the slightest out of place, and ideally shouldn’t even wrinkle her clothes. Extra points if she acts like a really awful overly-macho archetype with dialogue that would have people rolling their eyes if spoken by a male.
It was awesome when Linda Hamilton did it in T2 because it was new and innovative. Now it’s just a tired cliche.[/quote]
I second that. There seem to be about 30 of these chicks with two guns doing flips and kicks movies.
My new one after watching half of Transformers 3 on the plane is using CG to make danger happen right on the heels of the good guys.
What I mean is when a building is collapsing or a car is being thrown or a robot is flying through the air and they show it passing half an inch over the good guy’s head.
Also in 2012 when buddy drives the car about 6 miles and is always just a foot in front of the advancing destruction only to get on a plane that also flies half an inch from danger at all times.
That shit is old. Just another way CG is overused.
How about Jurassic Park 2?
One of the coolest scenes in the history ruined imo because of badly used CG?
They’re in the RV, 1 part hanging over a cliff. The chick is standing on a glass window, every move she makes cracks begin to appear. They tie a rope to a tree and climb down to rescue her.
Instead of doing what would happen in reality, and have them pull her up, they have a t-rex push the RV over the cliff, and as the thing falls, the people hanging on the rope miraculously survive as the RV does not touch one of them as it goes down.
instead of deus ex machina, we now have deus ex CGI.
^^ yeah…that would likely be the dawn of that sort of shit, where CG is used to show something incredibly dangerous happening a quarter of inch from someone’s eye.
I really think it was Transformers that did it the most. I mean you may run from the robots as they blow up half of Chicago but being 1 inch from the edge of the explosion of a huge building would not be good enough. You’d still die from all sorts of shrapnel and desks and cars and parts of walls and pencils and broken toilets and shit.
May have been mentioned already, but Seth Rogan. I’m so fucking sick of that guyy…
[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
May have been mentioned already, but Seth Rogan. I’m so fucking sick of that guyy…[/quote]
Yeah…he has that face that just looks like he’s someone you know, not an actor.
Even ugly actors usually have a face that’s distinctive and works on screen but Seth Rogan just looks like I should see him at the bar and we talk about high school shit we did together.
^
I’m sure that’s what they’re going for but I’m just sick of seeing him in every movie from 2009/2010 playing the exact same stoner-from-high-school-who-never-really-got-his-shit-together-but-is-really-fun-to-talk-to dude…
And I know this has been mentioned a few times but I’m really sick of seeing Nicholas Cage in things. I can only imagine what he’s thinking… ‘Maybe if I’m in ten movies this year one might be a hit’
[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Attempts to make period correct movies while trying to be politically correct…That’s really annoying. You’re in a bar in 1940’s and nobody is smoking? Really? [/quote]
Haha! True.
I also hate when a period piece can’t be factual about hairstyles. “Dances With Wolves” comes to mind… Costner and that ridiculous blow-dried mullet.
Almost every vintage photo I’ve ever seen of men from the Civil War years and onward had fuckin’ greasy hair (well, except maybe for Andrew Jackson…LOL).
And how about Mel Gibson’s idiotic long locks as he portrayed William Wallace?
However I did notice that Brad Pitt nearly got it right when portraying Jesse James. [/quote]
Stop trying to bash people with good hair, everybody knows your hair is more beautiful anyway, you don’t have to take them down a peg to prove it.[/quote]
LOL! Thanks… but my long hair is now history (pun intended).
[/quote]
Ah I see, it’s jealousy then!
Sad to hear it, I hope you got a good price for that pelt![/quote]
LOL!
Nah.
Donated it to Locks Of Love.
[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
May have been mentioned already, but Seth Rogan. I’m so fucking sick of that guyy…[/quote]
X2000!
[quote]pat wrote:
Attempts to make period correct movies while trying to be politically correct…That’s really annoying. You’re in a bar in 1940’s and nobody is smoking? Really? [/quote]
Oh yeah this Captain America was a good example of this, the military had been mostly segregated and to see African Americans and Asian American not in their “own” units took me right out of the film, not to mention Peggy Carter being a high rank in the military period, I do think X-Men First Class did it correctly with Mactaggart being verbally abused by her superiors though.
The villian is sympathetic, this is a trend in movies that is really starting to piss me off. A few good examples of it are both remakes of classic horror films, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Halloween. What made both these monsters great is they where batshit crazy and totally evil. I don’t want my slasher films filled with well is he really bad or did society make him that way bullshit Freud physco babble.
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]Northcott wrote:
Rambette.
The female lead who can whup the ass off of anybody she crosses – and must, to prove how tough she is, thoroughly trounce at least one male who has a hundred pounds of muscle mass on her, and has received similarly formidable training. Additionally, she must do so without breaking a sweat, getting her immaculate make-up smeared or perfect hair put even the slightest out of place, and ideally shouldn’t even wrinkle her clothes. Extra points if she acts like a really awful overly-macho archetype with dialogue that would have people rolling their eyes if spoken by a male.
It was awesome when Linda Hamilton did it in T2 because it was new and innovative. Now it’s just a tired cliche.[/quote]
I second that. There seem to be about 30 of these chicks with two guns doing flips and kicks movies.
My new one after watching half of Transformers 3 on the plane is using CG to make danger happen right on the heels of the good guys.
What I mean is when a building is collapsing or a car is being thrown or a robot is flying through the air and they show it passing half an inch over the good guy’s head.
Also in 2012 when buddy drives the car about 6 miles and is always just a foot in front of the advancing destruction only to get on a plane that also flies half an inch from danger at all times.
That shit is old. Just another way CG is overused.[/quote]
And they always move/drive/ run/ fly towards the camera. Old schoolers did it properly:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Attempts to make period correct movies while trying to be politically correct…That’s really annoying. You’re in a bar in 1940’s and nobody is smoking? Really? [/quote]
Oh yeah this Captain America was a good example of this, the military had been mostly segregated and to see African Americans and Asian American not in their “own” units took me right out of the film, not to mention Peggy Carter being a high rank in the military period…[/quote]
Yet it’s entirely in keeping with the source material, and faithful to Kirby & Lee’s work. The character Carter was based on was a rare high-ranking woman, and the Howling Commandos were a mixed race combat unit. So, sure, they could have changed that… but then they’d have been changing the source material simply to make more characters white. I’m perfectly fine with the producers having avoided that.