Cars tha blow up from nothing, bullets not going through car doors. FUCK U
My movie pet peeves:
Action movies where “grenades” detonate in a plume of bright red fire and smoke. Or claymores that detonate in a ball of fire rivaling a tactical nuclear weapon.
Action movies with “military” characters, yet they apparently can’t find a single actor who knows how to salute properly let alone wear a uniform that even looks close to reality.
Action movies where the “bad guys” surround the good guys, standing shoulder to shoulder… in a circle… firing on full automatic… for 2 minutes (some seriously big magazine there)… and every round misses the target. Oh, and the bullets don’t happen to hit the other “bad guy” standing directly across from them either.
Oh, I guess just “action movies” in general.
Don’t know if this has been said yet, but the “It’s a shame, I was just starting to like you” or “You know what, we would have made a great team” renditions from bad guys to heros in trouble…a little cliche at this point. Need more inventive ways of putting that…lol
[quote]late_start wrote:
My movie pet peeves:
Action movies with “military” characters, yet they apparently can’t find a single actor who knows how to salute properly let alone wear a uniform that even looks close to reality.
[/quote]
I hate that as well. But it goes way back in film history. The high-ranking hero always wears his peaked cap at some stylish angle.
I’m sure it’s been mentioned, but the shakey camera work during action sequences needs to end. The climax of ‘The Hunger Games’ looks like the camera man has Parkinson’s and you can’t follow the action at all.
[quote]gogy wrote:
Made an account to say I love this thread.[/quote]
Welcome!
Another peeve is when there’s a shoot out and the cool hero cop shows up in the middle of it and makes a joke about the traffic on the way to the shoot out. Like insurance jokes…not even funny the first time.
I hate CGI. I don’t care what movie it is in or how well it was done, but I hate CGI, especially with how overused it is today. It seem to me like they use CGI even when it is not needed and using real life props and scenes would be easier and more cost effective. The only exception to my hatred of CGI is the LOTR trilogy. Very artfully done. I have also come to hate slow motion. I think that 300, and most action movies these days will average about 45 minutes if they take out all the slow motion scenes.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I hate CGI. I don’t care what movie it is in or how well it was done, but I hate CGI, especially with how overused it is today. It seem to me like they use CGI even when it is not needed and using real life props and scenes would be easier and more cost effective. The only exception to my hatred of CGI is the LOTR trilogy. Very artfully done. I have also come to hate slow motion. I think that 300, and most action movies these days will average about 45 minutes if they take out all the slow motion scenes.[/quote]
I agree with much of what you say, but imagine the Hulk NOT being made up in CGI. They’d have to get an actor to do it and it would be lame… like the old Hulk TV show (although I LOVED it as a kid).
Sometimes CGI is the only way to go.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I hate CGI. I don’t care what movie it is in or how well it was done, but I hate CGI, especially with how overused it is today. It seem to me like they use CGI even when it is not needed and using real life props and scenes would be easier and more cost effective. The only exception to my hatred of CGI is the LOTR trilogy. Very artfully done. I have also come to hate slow motion. I think that 300, and most action movies these days will average about 45 minutes if they take out all the slow motion scenes.[/quote]
I liked the slow motion in 300. It’s the 100 movies that copied it that annoys me.
Kind of like the dodging bullets in the 1st Matrix. How many times was that done afterwards?
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I hate CGI. I don’t care what movie it is in or how well it was done, but I hate CGI, especially with how overused it is today. It seem to me like they use CGI even when it is not needed and using real life props and scenes would be easier and more cost effective. The only exception to my hatred of CGI is the LOTR trilogy. Very artfully done. I have also come to hate slow motion. I think that 300, and most action movies these days will average about 45 minutes if they take out all the slow motion scenes.[/quote]
I agree with much of what you say, but imagine the Hulk NOT being made up in CGI. They’d have to get an actor to do it and it would be lame… like the old Hulk TV show (although I LOVED it as a kid).
Sometimes CGI is the only way to go. [/quote]
That’s exactly what I thought…The Avengers. I was very impressed by how good even the Hulk’s face looked.
But otherwise yeah…too much CG in too many movies. Look at those Star Wars prequels. The screen is cluttered with so much junk that it collapsed under its own shitty CG.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]late_start wrote:
My movie pet peeves:
Action movies with “military” characters, yet they apparently can’t find a single actor who knows how to salute properly let alone wear a uniform that even looks close to reality.
[/quote]
I hate that as well. But it goes way back in film history. The high-ranking hero always wears his peaked cap at some stylish angle.
[/quote]
The best version of this line has to be Chris Tucker in Rush Hour 2.
To the hot Chinese Mob/Assasin girl.
‘‘You know we could have been good together…BUT YOU ARE ONE CRAZY ASS BITCH!!!’’
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I hate CGI. I don’t care what movie it is in or how well it was done, but I hate CGI, especially with how overused it is today. It seem to me like they use CGI even when it is not needed and using real life props and scenes would be easier and more cost effective. The only exception to my hatred of CGI is the LOTR trilogy. Very artfully done. I have also come to hate slow motion. I think that 300, and most action movies these days will average about 45 minutes if they take out all the slow motion scenes.[/quote]
Actually, the CGI is often cheaper, which is why it’s so overused.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
I hate CGI. I don’t care what movie it is in or how well it was done, but I hate CGI, especially with how overused it is today. It seem to me like they use CGI even when it is not needed and using real life props and scenes would be easier and more cost effective. The only exception to my hatred of CGI is the LOTR trilogy. Very artfully done. I have also come to hate slow motion. I think that 300, and most action movies these days will average about 45 minutes if they take out all the slow motion scenes.[/quote]
I agree with much of what you say, but imagine the Hulk NOT being made up in CGI. They’d have to get an actor to do it and it would be lame… like the old Hulk TV show (although I LOVED it as a kid).
Sometimes CGI is the only way to go. [/quote]
They did that with The Thing in the Fantasic Four movies. Micheal Chikalis (sp?) had to spend all day in a hot Thing suit that they had to spend hours gluing to his body everyday. But I guess that wouldn’t really work with a character the size of the Hulk.
when the main character goes through the movie kicking everyones ass who by the way is much younger than the good guy and also very good fighters and sometimes fights multiple people with out a problem, then the end comes and its the showdown with the main bad guy, who is clearly an out of shape old guy and the out of shape old bad guy gives the good guy a run for his money in the final fight! (sherlock holmes, Mission impossible 4)
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Cars tha blow up from nothing, bullets not going through car doors. FUCK U[/quote]
Have to agree about that. The guy will be driving a car getting riddled with bullets, and apparently not one of them will pass all the way through either the body or glass and so much as graze him. It would make sense if we were told the car was rigged with armor, but it’s usually some car that was randomly taken off the street.
I’m also sick of the passage of time morphing sequence. Remember the scene in Conan where the enslaved kid is made to push that grinding wheel, and as it turns a few times he ages to adulthood (and gets hyooge) and suddenly he’s Arnold?
How many times has a variation of that been done to quickly age the character? It was cool the first few times, but it’s become a cliche.
[quote]gbock wrote:
when the main character goes through the movie kicking everyones ass who by the way is much younger than the good guy and also very good fighters and sometimes fights multiple people with out a problem, then the end comes and its the showdown with the main bad guy, who is clearly an out of shape old guy and the out of shape old bad guy gives the good guy a run for his money in the final fight! (sherlock holmes, Mission impossible 4)
[/quote]
I’ll add a variation of this, such as seen in the Transporter movies:
The bad guy’s henchmen go up against the hero and get their asses kicked even though they have him outnumbered 10 to 1. Then, the survivors – along with other, fresh henchmen – try the same thing when they encounter him again later. You would think someone would say, “He’s obviously a better hand-to-hand fighter than any of us, so next time let’s use a machine gun.”
[quote]BobParr wrote:
[quote]gbock wrote:
when the main character goes through the movie kicking everyones ass who by the way is much younger than the good guy and also very good fighters and sometimes fights multiple people with out a problem, then the end comes and its the showdown with the main bad guy, who is clearly an out of shape old guy and the out of shape old bad guy gives the good guy a run for his money in the final fight! (sherlock holmes, Mission impossible 4)
[/quote]
I’ll add a variation of this, such as seen in the Transporter movies:
The bad guy’s henchmen go up against the hero and get their asses kicked even though they have him outnumbered 10 to 1. Then, the survivors – along with other, fresh henchmen – try the same thing when they encounter him again later. You would think someone would say, “He’s obviously a better hand-to-hand fighter than any of us, so next time let’s use a machine gun.”
[/quote]
Or hire a sniper.
[quote]gbock wrote:
when the main character goes through the movie kicking everyones ass who by the way is much younger than the good guy and also very good fighters and sometimes fights multiple people with out a problem, then the end comes and its the showdown with the main bad guy, who is clearly an out of shape old guy and the out of shape old bad guy gives the good guy a run for his money in the final fight! (sherlock holmes, Mission impossible 4)
[/quote]
In Sherlock Holmes I was really hoping after both of them saw the entire fight sequence in their minds, that Sherlock would knee the villain in the balls and toss him over the wall. Then he’d say, “Bet you didn’t see that coming, LOL!” And yes, I would actually want him to say “LOL” aloud so everyone in the theater would be like WTF?
This…
[quote]Marzouk wrote:
Cars tha blow up from nothing, bullets not going through car doors. FUCK U[/quote]
Or bullets not going through wind shields.
Or when bullets do shatter a windshield but do not continue through and kill the driver and passengers.