Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Because often, the actor's name is more memorable than the character, especially for a movie reviewer. A reviewer will likely have seen some of Big Name Actor's previous films, and will be familiar wit that person by that name. Same goes for the casual audience, though possibly to a lesser degree. If, whenever WillSmith is on screen, you just automatically think, "[[HeyItsThatGuy Oh hey, there's Will Smith]]," why not write that way? It makes sense, especially if the character's name isn't particularly memorable. You get an hour or two, maybe a bit more, to learn the character's name, and the entire career of the actor to learn his or her name. It's just easier this way.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 100 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Superman Returns made 390million Batman Begins made made 370million. It was only considered a flop because of the astronomical overheads it had accumulted after being almost-made so many times. And also, you're an idiot.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 157 (click to see context) from:
to:
** I agree that a lot of characters in adaptations have their personalities or back-stories changed such that they could be considered "butchered", but '''hair color'''? ''Seriously''?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 220 (click to see context) from:
* It bugs the hell out of me when movie critics and whatnot refer to the characters in a movie as "X's character" or the actor's surname (especially in animated films). So with movies with big-name actors like {{Will Smith}} and {{Arnold Schwarzenegger}}, why do the writers even bother having the actors play characters when everyone will inevitably refer to them by their actor's name? Why can't actors just always play {{The Danza}}?
to:
* It bugs the hell out of me when movie critics and whatnot refer to the characters in a movie as "X's character" or the actor's surname (especially in animated films). So with movies with big-name actors like {{Will Smith}} and {{Arnold Schwarzenegger}}, why do the writers even bother having the actors play characters when everyone will inevitably refer to them by their actor's name? Why can't actors just always play {{The Danza}}?Danza}}? (This, of course, doesn't apply to adaptations and remakes in which actors are playing previously-established characters.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 220 (click to see context) from:
* It bugs the hell out of me when movie critics and whatnot refer to the characters in a movie as "X's character" or the actor's surname (especially in animated films). So with movies with big-name actors like {{Will Smith}} and {{Arnold Schwarzenegger}}, why do the writers even bother having the actors play characters when everyone will inevitably refer to them by their actor's name? It seems ridiculous to give the characters names when everybody is going to see them as their actor.
to:
* It bugs the hell out of me when movie critics and whatnot refer to the characters in a movie as "X's character" or the actor's surname (especially in animated films). So with movies with big-name actors like {{Will Smith}} and {{Arnold Schwarzenegger}}, why do the writers even bother having the actors play characters when everyone will inevitably refer to them by their actor's name? It seems ridiculous to give the characters names when everybody is going to see them as their actor. Why can't actors just always play {{The Danza}}?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 220 (click to see context) from:
* It bugs the hell out of me when movie critics and whatnot refer to the characters in a movie as "X's character" or the actor's surname (especially in animated films). So with movies with big-name actors like [[Will Smith]] and [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]], why do the writers even bother having the actors play characters when everyone will inevitably refer to them by their actor's name? It seems ridiculous to give the characters names when everybody is going to see them as their actor.
to:
* It bugs the hell out of me when movie critics and whatnot refer to the characters in a movie as "X's character" or the actor's surname (especially in animated films). So with movies with big-name actors like [[Will Smith]] {{Will Smith}} and [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]], {{Arnold Schwarzenegger}}, why do the writers even bother having the actors play characters when everyone will inevitably refer to them by their actor's name? It seems ridiculous to give the characters names when everybody is going to see them as their actor.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 220 (click to see context) from:
----
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 217 (click to see context) from:
* Why is "Play All" not a universal option on [=DVDs=] of TV series? I can understand the very first such releases to not include it because the producers were not familiar with the medium, or low-budget niche seriesm where the DVD was just thrown together, but Star Trek: TNG has neither excuse.
to:
** I've actually gotten really good at blocking out the bits I think will be spoilers from trailers. I can do something similar with menus, as long as I remember to squint.
* Why is "Play All" not a universal option on [=DVDs=] of TV series? I can understand the very first such releases to not include it because the producers were not familiar with the medium, or low-budget nicheseriesm series where the DVD was just thrown together, but Star Trek: TNG has neither excuse.excuse.
** Which is weird, because I believe my Firefly DVD has that option. Too lazy to check.
* Why is "Play All" not a universal option on [=DVDs=] of TV series? I can understand the very first such releases to not include it because the producers were not familiar with the medium, or low-budget niche
** Which is weird, because I believe my Firefly DVD has that option. Too lazy to check.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 155 (click to see context) from:
*** Waitwaitwait. If SelzerAndFriedberg swapped Susan and Lucy's lines in ''EpicMovie'', they would've made a legitimate joke? We just barely avoided the apocalypse!
to:
*** Waitwaitwait. If SelzerAndFriedberg SeltzerAndFriedberg swapped Susan and Lucy's lines in ''EpicMovie'', they would've made a legitimate joke? We just barely avoided the apocalypse!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Waitwaitwait. If SelzerAndFriedberg swapped Susan and Lucy's lines in ''EpicMovie'', they would've made a legitimate joke? We just barely avoided the apocalypse!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 210 (click to see context) from:
* The setup of DVDs bugs me. Some have languages alone while some have languages as "special features." If that's not bad enough, ''Chronicles of Riddick'' has two choices, "Fight" or "Conform" when the movie starts, but there's no explanation anywhere for what the difference is in the two.
to:
* The setup of DVDs [=DVDs=] bugs me. Some have languages alone while some have languages as "special features." If that's not bad enough, ''Chronicles of Riddick'' has two choices, "Fight" or "Conform" when the movie starts, but there's no explanation anywhere for what the difference is in the two.
Changed line(s) 212 (click to see context) from:
* Anti-piracy ads on legally purchased DVDs. Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys!
to:
* Anti-piracy ads on legally purchased DVDs.[=DVDs=]. Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys!
Changed line(s) 216 (click to see context) from:
* Why is "Play All" not a universal option on DVDs of TV series? I can understand the very first such releases to not include it because the producers were not familiar with the medium, or low-budget niche seriesm where the DVD was just thrown together, but Star Trek: TNG has neither excuse.
to:
* Why is "Play All" not a universal option on DVDs [=DVDs=] of TV series? I can understand the very first such releases to not include it because the producers were not familiar with the medium, or low-budget niche seriesm where the DVD was just thrown together, but Star Trek: TNG has neither excuse.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** At least they're starting to replace them with congratulations. The fact that you can't skip this though...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 142 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Instinct?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 141,142 (click to see context) from:
* Specific zombie movie question: In [[Return of the Living Dead]] the zombies eat brains because it takes away the pain of feeling themselves rotting (because the brain is full of those smooth endorphins). This leads to two questions: How do the newly risen zombies know that eating brains will help with their pain? Do they tell each other or something or do they just hear the other zombies saying "Brains!" and think "Hey, not there's an idea!" or does the chemical just give them a natural knowledge of brains = painkillers. The second question is why the hell don't they just take shitloads of painkillers? Seriously, you break into a hospital and eat the brains of all the doctors in order to get the endorphins in his head. Why not just steal the damned morphine?
to:
* Specific zombie movie question: In [[Return of the Living Dead]] ReturnoftheLivingDead the zombies eat brains because it takes away the pain of feeling themselves rotting (because the brain is full of those smooth endorphins). This leads to two questions: How do the newly risen zombies know that eating brains will help with their pain? Do they tell each other or something or do they just hear the other zombies saying "Brains!" and think "Hey, not there's an idea!" or does the chemical just give them a natural knowledge of brains = painkillers. The second question is why the hell don't they just take shitloads of painkillers? Seriously, you break into a hospital and eat the brains of all the doctors in order to get the endorphins in his head. Why not just steal the damned morphine?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
*** Going back to an old point, how did a scene like this make it off the editing floor? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4&feature=related . I hear the actors couldn't speak english, but surely some of the staff should have realised how awful the film was. And frankly I wonder if the lead of Silent Night Deadly Night 2 is TRYING to mock the film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIpuIVE3k
to:
*** Going back to an old point, how did a scene like this make it off the editing floor? http://www.[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4&feature=related . com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4&feature=related how did a scene like this make it off the editing floor?]] I hear the actors couldn't speak english, but surely some of the staff should have realised how awful the film was. And frankly I wonder if the lead of Silent Night Deadly Night 2 is TRYING to mock the film http://www.[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIpuIVE3kcom/watch?v=i7gIpuIVE3k if the lead of Silent Night Deadly Night 2 is TRYING to mock the film]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
*** At least two of MST3K's riffed movies were released after MST3K went on the air. In the case of [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113135/ Future War] (1997) the crew quietly realized as they made it that the movie stunk and even said on the set that the movie was worthy of MST3K.
to:
*** At least two of MST3K's riffed movies were released after MST3K went on the air. In the case of [http://www.[[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113135/ Future War] War]] (1997) the crew quietly realized as they made it that the movie stunk and even said on the set that the movie was worthy of MST3K.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why is "Play All" not a universal option on DVDs of TV series? I can understand the very first such releases to not include it because the producers were not familiar with the medium, or low-budget niche seriesm where the DVD was just thrown together, but Star Trek: TNG has neither excuse.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 99 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** How is Bryan Singer the only person in Hollywood with brains? '''Superman Returns'' FLOPPED! '''Batman Begins''', on the other hand, was a success. Deal with it, baby.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
on "not for critics", and on action scenes
Changed line(s) 195 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** As phrased, that argument may come across as [[http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/24/ this]]. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that each film must be understood in terms of its genre, and compared specifically to other members of the genre, rather than to "films" in some generic sense. Martial arts films have a certain aesthetic, and even with that aesthetic, you have everything from gracefully-minded drama to cartoonish comedy; it wouldn't make sense to blast ''KungFuHustle'' as graceless or ''CrouchingTigerHiddenDragon'' as unfunny. Basically, critics should reasonably represent the demographic of people who would be intrigued by the trailers. (For example, I didn't much like ''HotFuzz'', but I later figured out I wasn't in the target audience, namely, people familiar with the themes and motifs of cop-action flicks.)
** One answer to the original question might be the fact that with the right budget, it's not too difficult to make an action scene that's moderately heart-pounding; as a result, action scenes become one of those "candy" things, gathering a reputation for being manipulative instead of substantive. (Similarly, there are critics who react this way to any movie with an explicit sex scene, although they are fewer. Perhaps that's because sex is more of a "universal" candy? Which would also be another reason for the pooh-poohing of action; it's just not everyone's cup of tea, so a fair number of people watch it with more detachment.)
** One answer to the original question might be the fact that with the right budget, it's not too difficult to make an action scene that's moderately heart-pounding; as a result, action scenes become one of those "candy" things, gathering a reputation for being manipulative instead of substantive. (Similarly, there are critics who react this way to any movie with an explicit sex scene, although they are fewer. Perhaps that's because sex is more of a "universal" candy? Which would also be another reason for the pooh-poohing of action; it's just not everyone's cup of tea, so a fair number of people watch it with more detachment.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 201,203 (click to see context) :
** One possibility: in terms of "fix-ability", [[spoiler:stillborns]] lack more than an [[spoiler:injured]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
batt not inc (fix on prev)
Changed line(s) 199,204 (click to see context) from:
** Human doctors can also fix many things, but not everything. "Curing" [[spoiler:stillbirth]] is well beyond the capabilities of human medicine as well. Perhaps the problem being faced by the robots is fundamentally similar: [[spoiler:stillborn is equivalent to being born "dead", and no amount of machine-work can reverse entropy to return the baby robot's cycles into a permanent "on" state]].
Presumably, a functional machine being damaged is [[spoiler:born stillborn]] is less a matter of previouslyfunctional-machine-plus-damage, and more a. (The ''real'' question is why the hell they [[spoiler:give birth]] in the first place. Oh well.)
Presumably, a functional machine being damaged is [[spoiler:born stillborn]] is less a matter of previouslyfunctional-machine-plus-damage, and more a. (The ''real'' question is why the hell they [[spoiler:give birth]] in the first place. Oh well.)
to:
** Human doctors can also fix many things, but not everything. "Curing" [[spoiler:stillbirth]] is well beyond the capabilities of human medicine as well. Perhaps the problem being faced by the robots is fundamentally similar: [[spoiler:stillborn is equivalent to being born "dead", and no amount of machine-work can reverse entropy to return the baby robot's cycles into a permanent "on" state]].
Presumably, a functional machine being damaged is [[spoiler:born stillborn]] is less a matter of previouslyfunctional-machine-plus-damage, and more a.state]]. (The ''real'' question is why the hell they the robots [[spoiler:give birth]] in the first place.place, and, extrapolating from that, whether [[spoiler:"baby" robots somehow "grow" into adults]]. Oh well.)
Presumably, a functional machine being damaged is [[spoiler:born stillborn]] is less a matter of previouslyfunctional-machine-plus-damage, and more a.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
batt not inc
Changed line(s) 199 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Human doctors can also fix many things, but not everything. "Curing" [[spoiler:stillbirth]] is well beyond the capabilities of human medicine as well. Perhaps the problem being faced by the robots is fundamentally similar: [[spoiler:stillborn is equivalent to being born "dead", and no amount of machine-work can reverse entropy to return the baby robot's cycles into a permanent "on" state]].
Presumably, a functional machine being damaged is [[spoiler:born stillborn]] is less a matter of previouslyfunctional-machine-plus-damage, and more a. (The ''real'' question is why the hell they [[spoiler:give birth]] in the first place. Oh well.)
** One possibility: in terms of "fix-ability", [[spoiler:stillborns]] lack more than an [[spoiler:injured]]
Presumably, a functional machine being damaged is [[spoiler:born stillborn]] is less a matter of previouslyfunctional-machine-plus-damage, and more a. (The ''real'' question is why the hell they [[spoiler:give birth]] in the first place. Oh well.)
** One possibility: in terms of "fix-ability", [[spoiler:stillborns]] lack more than an [[spoiler:injured]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
2 bullets on DV Ds
Added DiffLines:
** On top of that, it just feels annoying to, in effect, watch the movie before you watch the movie; it forces the brain to think about all the different scenes that are coming up, instead of allowing us to bask in the mysteries ahead. The worst of it is when the transition from the menu to the beginning of the film is some overlong clip from the movie itself. Then it feels like the time sequence has been scrambled! Plus, you start to get sick of that transition clip if you find yourself often selecting buttons that activate it. Note to DVD menu designers: just stick with a single short clip from the movie, or better yet, a clever motif somehow related to the movie, like a dinner menu or a roadmap.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
New one: gripe about Yes Virginia
Added DiffLines:
* Another Santa-related gripe. Why is YesVirginia the ironclad rule for all Santa-related fiction aimed at children? I'm not talking so much about the principle that Santa really exists in most Christmas specials; that's a reasonable "code of silence" whereby no adult wants to spoil things. I'm talking about the message that people who ''don't'' believe in Santa are at best deluded and at worst horrible, horrible misanthropes. Given that the screenwriters presumably ''don't'' believe in Santa in RealLife, how can they vilify ''themselves'' like that? Going by Christmas films, a Martian would assume that Santa-belief was as standard among human adults as among children, and that most Earthlings agree that non-Santa-believers are bad people.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 192 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I'll use it as a litmus test from now on.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Clips from the film / TV show showing on the DVD menu. This ''really'' bugs me, because there seems to be little regard for the possibility that the person watching the DVD has never seen the film it contains before. So these clips, usually of the most iconic scenes in the movie, act as spoilers. [[{{Wallbanger}} Arggghhhh]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Anti-piracy ads on legally purchased DVDs. Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 203 (click to see context) from:
to:
* The setup of DVDs bugs me. Some have languages alone while some have languages as "special features." If that's not bad enough, ''Chronicles of Riddick'' has two choices, "Fight" or "Conform" when the movie starts, but there's no explanation anywhere for what the difference is in the two.
** It also bugs me when I can't skip the previews to get the movie started. At times, I have to fast-forward pass 10 minutes of previews.
** It also bugs me when I can't skip the previews to get the movie started. At times, I have to fast-forward pass 10 minutes of previews.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 62 (click to see context) from:
to:
**To answer the original question, making bad movies isn't punishable by death. As a fan of the art of parody, I'll admit though that one or two laughs does NOT make a whole movie work, they AT THE VERY LEAST need a professional to help them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Specific zombie movie question: In [[Return of the Living Dead]] the zombies eat brains because it takes away the pain of feeling themselves rotting (because the brain is full of those smooth endorphins). This leads to two questions: How do the newly risen zombies know that eating brains will help with their pain? Do they tell each other or something or do they just hear the other zombies saying "Brains!" and think "Hey, not there's an idea!" or does the chemical just give them a natural knowledge of brains = painkillers. The second question is why the hell don't they just take shitloads of painkillers? Seriously, you break into a hospital and eat the brains of all the doctors in order to get the endorphins in his head. Why not just steal the damned morphine?
