James Bond. Which of the (to date) six actors portraying the world's favorite spy is best, and whether or not any given actor is good. There was a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode where three nerds argue over Bond: two pick the usual populist choices of Sean Connery and Roger Moore, while the third nerd finally erupts in frustration that less-liked actor Timothy Dalton would kick both their asses. This came to particular prominence in the international media due to the casting of Daniel Craig.
The Oscars are always going to cause epic flame wars, no matter what films win, lose, or don't get nominated in the first place. Some notable examples
1998: Shakespeare in Love winning Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, not helped by the backlash against the Weinstein's massive Oscar campaign for the former
2006: Nothing makes old wounds ache like bringing up Crash winning in 2006 over Brokeback Mountain.
2009: The Dark Knight (and to a lesser extent WALL•E) not receiving Best Picture nods (while the much less well received Oscar BaitThe Reader did) caused enough backlash to inspire the Academy to expand the Best Picture category from five to ten films. Still pisses off a lot of people though
2012: Meryl Streep vs. Viola Davis. Was Meryl long overdue? Was Viola robbed? And then bring race issues into it, and prepare to watch the Internet go up in toasty, toasty flames.
Another source of irritation is the way the Academy treats the major awards like lifetime achievement awards at times. Thus, Marlon Brando wins Best Actor for The Godfather, when the award should have gone to Al Pacino (who inexplicably was nominated for Supporting Actor that year). Pacino eventually won for Scent of a Woman, even though arguably it was the weakest performance out of those nominated in 1993.
Let's just say this is why Award Snub no longer allows examples on that page.
Speaking of Academy and Oscar awards, tell anyone that you think Juno was a great movie and deserved all the awards it won. You will be flamed and mutilated endlessly.
Until Martin Scorsese won an Oscar, a common trope on film nerd boards was "I guess the Academy thinks [[INSERT WINNER HERE]] is better than Scorsese!", whether or not he was even nominated that year. It got old fast.
As follows from the Not Using the Z Word article, there have been some pretty nerdy debates on whether the Infection in 28 Days Later is zombie-like in nature, whether the movie "counted" as a zombie film and the various ethical debates within the series. The "WAI NO ZOMBEES??" debate is the main one, unfortunately, as no one apparently cares about what the plot was for — just, why the hell aren't those zombies lusting for human flesh and lurching appropriately?
Go to any sci-fi related forum and claim that Harrison Ford's Deckard in Blade Runner is/isn't a replicant.
Wanna start a flame war within the Godzilla fandom? It's easy. Just mention that the American remake of Godzilla is even slightly good.
For added flames, mention that you liked Godzilla's Revenge.
Likewise, just casually ask whether or not King Kong, Gamera, or, more recently, the Cloverfield monster could beat Godzilla. Then, sit back, relax, and enjoy the oncoming flames.
Never ask where Minya came from (or Junior or even Godzooky for that matter). Just, don't. Too many Godzilla fans have been decimated in the resulting flame wars.
Likewise, ask which era is best. Showa, Heisei, or Millennium?
Ishiro Honda. Either he's one of the greatest Japanese film directors who created brilliant monster movies, or he's ridiculously over-hyped and takes the attention away from underappreciated Godzilla film directors. No two fans will fully agree.
Go onto a Godzilla fan forum. Post a negative review of Godzilla, Mothra, King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack. Sit back, and enjoy the flames.
Should Godzilla fight classic foes like Mothra, King Ghidorah, and Mechagodzilla? Or, should he fight more original monsters like Biollante, Orga, and Destroyah? The fandom has been at each other's throats for years, and it just keeps going on whenever some poor soul asks this eternal-struggle causing question.
Which George Romero film is the best zombie movie? For extra fun, what is the symbolism of each movie, if any?
Unless you want to start a massive flame war with Serbian internet goers, you probably shouldn't even mention Angelina Jolie's directorial debut In The Land Of Blood And Honey.
Check out the trailer's comments for more examples than you could shake a stick at.
Go to any Batman/movie forum/YouTube video and say you prefer the Tim Burton 1989 Batman or for that matter any Batman film from 1966 to Begins as opposed to The Dark Knight and watch the fanboys attack. Seriously, when they start claiming that Heath Ledger actually became The Joker, mention how him terrorizing cities in real life had no press coverage.
Same goes for saying that you prefer the new one to the old one.
And just for laughs: Who is the better Batman?
Better yet: Who was the best Bruce Wayne in addition to who was the best Batman?
Recipe for complete destruction: "Joel Schumacher made WAAAAAAY better Batman movies than Christopher Nolan and Tim Burton put together."
Back when the movie Constantine was released, stating that the movie version was superior to his comic counterpart would result in 10+ pages worth of rants and flames on forums.
Do not mention the Joel Schumacher film on a Phantom of the Opera forum. On one discussion forum, the pro-film and anti-film parties were segregated into separate threads to keep the peace. The drama has subsided somewhat due to the various factions quietly ignoring each other, but still... enough lives have been lost already.
Don't mention him near the Batman fans either... it's not pretty.
In the "Phantom" vein, don't ever, ever, EVER, say that you like the Tim Burton Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street movie around musical theater fans, or say that you like the original stage play around Johnny Depp fangirls. Either way, you're gonna get burned.
Better yet, don't say that both versions have a lot of good points and you don't see what's so bad about one or the other.
The latest Star Trek movie generated these, even before opening. This has led to "Post this and get banned" notices at several bulletin boards.
Give it anything but complete praise and you will get attacked... even if you write a positive review. On one major fansite a score of a 6 provoked a huge amount of hate mail-a 6 was also given by the author to The Voyage Home, and that score is higher than the ones for The Search for Spock, The Final Frontier and Nemesis. But still, it wasn't a 10, so it was bad.
Among some groups saying anything positive about the film will get you attacked as a moron or someone who hates what Star Trek is supposed to stand for.
Star Wars there's lots of fun here. Some highlights:
Try saying you liked any of the prequels (Episode I if you are brave).
Ask whether the Expanded Universe is worth consideration. Bonus points if you do so in TheForce.net's lit forum
State Book Series X is not as good as Book Series Y
Opine that George Lucas is a Genius/Moron
Question an author's interpretation/writing of a character (EU sources)
Try to seriously ponder the moral culpability on the Jedi for accepting the clone army...
...or any other mention of Karen Traviss
Mention General Grievous. Was he an Anticlimax Boss? Was Lucas wrong for going against Genndy Tartakovsky's version of the character in Clone Wars? Was Tartakovsky wrong for going against Lucas's original idea? Was Mace Windu Force-Crushing his chest enough justification for any perceived Villain Decay? You will not, however, be flamed for claiming the Clone Wars incarnation was a Badass, or that you liked the comic explaining his origin.
Mention that you have refrained from watching any of them, and never intend to, and watch fans of any of the movies' jaws drop, and listen to them insist that you 'have to' watch the movies.
Imply Curtis Saxton's data in the technical manuals is anything less than accurate or honest.
Go into any horror movie forum and bring up the issue of whether Evil Dead II is a remake, reboot, or sequel. No matter what side you support (or even if you're neutral), you're bound to stir up some flames.
The Twilight movies. Quick ways to piss off entire forums: Stephenie Meyer's "dream team" casting should have been put into place by Summit. Robert Pattinson is the best/worst Edward ever. Same for Kristen Stewart and Bella. Taylor Lautner should have been fired. Bryce Dallas Howard will make a FAR better Victoria. New Moon was horrible. Twilight's special effects were awesome. And, easiest of all: there should be no sex in Breaking Dawn, because won't anyone think of the children?
When Eclipse led the Razzies nominations along with The Last Airbender, the fandom quickly went to the awards website to complain (though it got there more due to overexposure than due to the film being that bad).
Even better, the plot of the film alone is enough to start a flame war. Especially if you compare it to FernGully, Dances With Wolves, and/or Pocahontas.
Note, however, that this is usually not so much because of any disagreement about the validity of the comparisons (assuming the issue is even considered relevant) as the jokes being supremely stale. Even people who agreed, for instance, that the creators of Lost were making it up as they went along got sick to death of jokes about this long before the series finale came.
"Is Shock Treatment a sequel or not?" The official answer: yes and no. It does take place AFTER Rocky Horror, but it's not a continuation of the first film. Try telling that to the fandom, though.
Likewise, never, never, NEVER mention that you find the Audience Participation in Rocky Horror to be pointless or a "silly gimmick that's the only thing keeping a mediocre cult film alive". You will be burned by flames.
The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street and how Robert Englund and only Robert Englund is allowed to play Freddy Krueger. You'd think casting Jackie Earle Haley as everyones' favorite claw-handed killing machine was a crime worse than the Lindbergh kidnapping the way some of the fanboys are carrying on about it.
To this very day there are flamewars over which parent in Mrs. Doubtfire was actually sympathetic. It basically boils down to "Miranda was a total bitch and Daniel was just a guy who loved his kids and would do anything to be with them" vs. "Miranda was the only responsible person in the house and Daniel was a pathetic, whiny, slightly creepy jerk worthy of contempt". And it's not just limited to the film's IMDB board either. The film's entry in the Family Unfriendly Aesop page of this very wiki used to be full of natter from Team Miranda vs. Team Daniel.
Never, Never, NEVER ask whether or not the sequels are any good. The answers will vary, to say the least.
It's also not a good idea to ask whether or not Timon & Pumbaa is canon to how the titular meerkat and warthog duo met or if the midquel Lion King 1 1/2 is.
Nala. Especially when it involves the topic of her parentage (IE: Is Scar her father? Is Mufasa? Is it some random unknown lion?)
The film in general. Is it Disney's greatest 2D animated film, ever? Is it a good film, but not worth all the hype? Or, is it just an over-hyped animal musical that doesn't deserve all the attention/praise it gets? You're bound to get at least two or more people with very different opinions on the matter.
Do NOT, under any circumstances, mention that you dislike/hate Scar. Just...don't. Unless you want to be mauled by rabid fangirls.
NEVER say that you dislike the film, or think it is a bad film. You will face an end worse than the above.
Apparently, do not mention that you think James Cameron is the greatest filmmaker of all time in front of Christopher Nolan fans. Or vice versa. Otherwise, this happens. Yikes!
Sites boycotting the film Twenty One popped up in the aftermath of the "whitewash casting" controversy, and there were many netizens hating on Jeff Ma, who had a cameo in the film but didn't push for an Asian to be cast as the lead.
Whatever you do, don't mention how similar Repo! The Genetic Opera is to Repo Men in the presence of the fans of either. There will be blood.
Just for giggles, post a video on YouTube with the ever-popular song "America! FUCK YEAH! and enjoy the political Flame War that is to follow.
Actually, post ANY video on ANY subject on Youtube, and be prepared for massive amounts of jingoism, xenophobia, and opinionated political grandstanding. I've seen flame-wars about Obama's presidency pop up on Spongebob Squarepants videos. I'm not even kidding.
Inception versus Paprika, and whether the former is just an unimaginative rip-off of the latter (not helped by Nolan admitting Paprika influenced Inception a great deal)
You could probably diffuse both parties by giving them a little push toward the Philip K. Dick section of Amazon.
Whether Bane makes a good final villain. Supporters emphasize that Comic-Book Bane is NOTHING like SchumacherBane and cite the Knightfall story arc of how Bane broke Batman's back as a good jumping-off point for a finale, while detractors claim that Bane has nothing going for him other than the fact that he broke Batman's back, claiming that any other villain (the most popular choice being the Riddler) would make a better final enemy.
Whether there are too many/too few/just the right amount of villains
Whether or not Nolan should break his "no sidekicks" rule and include Robin, which often descend into arguments about whether you like Robin in general
Even the title has people complaining about how much it sucks.
Never, ever, EVER say that you like the Harry Potter films more than the books. You will be ripped to shreds by the fandom. Even on this very wiki.
Steve Kloves (the screenwriter for all the movies except Order Of The Phoenix) gets a lot of hate for the changes he made to the book. Ron/Hermione shippers (and Ron fans in general), despise him in particular for his treatment of Ron (giving many of his best lines to other characters, removing a lot of his intelligence and making him much more goofy and essentially reducing his role in the trio to Plucky Comic Relief) and Hermione (giving her many of the best lines, including several of Ron's, playing up her intelligence and competence to almost Mary Sue-ish proportions), and his seeming preference for Harry/Hermione. Not helped by Kloves saying that his favorite character is Hermione and many Harmonians (militant H/Hr shippers) citing the movies as evidence for their 'ship (Despite the fact that the movies aren't, y'know...canon)
Also don't lament against The Prisoner Of Azkaban (The Harry Potter equivalent of The Empire Strikes Back) if you know what's good for you (especially not if it's The Chamber of Secrets, the equivalent of The Phantom Menace)
Also which Dumbledore is better? Older fans will tell you Richard Harris and his Cool Old Guy, The Obi-Wan, authoratative portrayal was the best against the flamboyant, expressive, Large Ham-like Michael Gambon. The others would say Michael Gambon gave Dumbledore more depth and Richard Harris was just giving a Santa Claus-like portrayal. Either way the results are very ugly
Sucker Punch. Hoo boy. Either it is an unabashed ode to all things geeky or an incomprehensible mess of Author Appeal and Male Gaze with a more than healthy dose of Unfortunate Implications. Bonus points if you use "video game" to describe it negatively.
Admit anywhere that you don't think Seltzer and Friedberg are the worst filmmakers of all time and the sum of everything wrong with modern cinema. There's a reason their page on this wiki is locked.
Ever since Jurassic Park 3, bringing up T. rex vs. Spinosaurus and who would win will cause wars among fans.
ANY movie with an ambiguous ending will do this. Some people wil say that films with ambiguous endings are open to interpretation. That said endings are subject to their emotional and subjective understanding of the film. That they are designed for the audience to process during their quiet, post-watching introspection. Some people, however, want a DAMN answer and will not only expect one but get irritated when people defend the endings, seeing them as nothing more than cop outs. The side that values the ambiguity then gets frustrated and angry themselves and arguments break out. A third side that will chime in are those that claim to have it figured out and will shut out any appropriate argument back. What really exacerbates the problem is the subjectivity of ambiguous endings which makes it hard to argue in physical or practical terms. The Wrestler and Inception are two films that suffered from this in recent memory.
Among black movie goers there's the debate over Romance Comedies (or any other type of comedy) vs Dramas. Some see the former as Uncle Tom Foolery, while some sees the latter as depressing sap fests, that show blacks as impoverished criminal stereotypes living miserable lives, and having miserable relationships. Both genres seems to be the antithesis to the other. Also bring up Tyler PerryFor Massive Damage
To that end..Tyler Perry, Tyler Freaking Perry. Tyler is polarizing even among black audiences for widely different reasons. He gets criticism from both genders (though black women are mostly supportive), and the general black populace is bitterly divided over him. Though some think the dissenters are just a very vocal minority. Some of this over laps with the comedy vs drama in black movies debate mentioned above.
Is the 2012 Spider-Man reboot a great move or a horrible idea? Is Tobey Maguire the one and only Spider-Man, or will Andrew Garfield be better? Should Emma Stone have played Mary-Jane, or is she perfect as Gwen Stacy? Which is better, organic webs or mechanical web-shooters? The list goes on....
Now with the new official pictures of the Lizard, there's been backdraft everywhere.
And on a related note, there is a third group: the people who not only think the reboot is unnecessary, but that the original films shouldn't have been made in the first place.
Well not really a film, but it happens before newer Disney films anyway. Some people think that this is a wonderful addition, while others complain that it takesway too long and that new people who like it don't know what Disney used to be like.
Do NOT say at a Planet of the Apes forum that you liked the Tim Burton remake. The results will not be pretty. "Rise" has generated a bit of squabbling over whether it was a decent reboot or had too many flaws and Mythology Gag stuff, but nowhere near the level of the 2001 remake.
That said, just try asking if 'Rise' is an intelligent film with flaws or a failed film with too many big plotholes.
The timelines. Good grief, the timelines. There will be heated arguments if you ask whether the original films are a circular timeline (ie the aftermath of the final film takes the world right back to the first film and the world's eventual distruction) or if Zira and Cornelius changed the future by returning to the past. (Hasselin's 'multi-lane highway theory' with its many variations).
Can happen if you say you like 'Battle',which many consider the weakest film of all the originals.
Never, ever, EVER mention these two words to a Paul fan: Scott...Pilgrim... They will skin you alive. There are a few Paul fans who like Scott Pilgrim, but the majority of them despise it with a passion, passing it off as an "unfunny, geeky comic/film for boneheaded gaming nerds who like video game shout-outs, pee jokes, homosexuality, and random humor". (Never mind the fact that Paul had lots of shout-outs, pee jokes, and homosexual jokes as well, had a Scott Pilgrim: Odds and Ends book seen in the background of a comic book shop in one scene, and Simon Pegg himself has even stated that he loves Scott Pilgrim.) For example, a YouTube upload of the ELO song All Over the World (which played during the end credits and epilogue of Paul) had a person comment on the video saying "Paul is this year's Scott Pilgrim!", and then a douchebag replied to him with a comment that said something like "Except Paul was actually a good, funny movie", the latter comment ended up getting more thumbs up than the former comment.
