re: Movie Snobs, whats your beef with pop corn flicks ?

quote:

---

TF2 is the definition of a popcorn flick period...not one "gone wrong".

---

I kind of disagree. I think TF2 is one of those lowest common denominator popcorn flicks. Where something like the movie with giant blue aliens is a good popcorn movie.

quote:

---

I like explosions. I also like a plot. If you're going to spend $100 million on a movie, how hard is it to hire a screenwriter.

And I hated Transformers not because of evil killing robots, but because I couldn't follow the movie because there were just a punishing number of jump cuts. To give Cameron credit for Avatar, I like the sweeping camera a lot better. Really, you can blow shite up AND respect the audience. They aren't exclusive.

---

Right, but my post assumed that the movies that contain a high quantity of explosions do not do what you suggested, like hire a screenwriter or contain a coherent plot. That is why I said that generally speaking, I don't like movies with a lot of explosions

I like the explosions themselves. Who doesn't like to watch shite blow up?

quote:

---

I mean, if you want all the character a plot development and none of the splosions and special effects, read a book..they are WAY better and telling a story and conveying emotions.

---

Just because my Top 15 movies are arthouse movies no one has ever heard doesn't mean I can't enjoy a good summer blockbuster.

This is the best analogy to explain it:

Blockbuster movies : junk food :: art films : fancy steak dinner


Junk food taste great but too much makes you sick. A fancy steak dinner is thick and filling and you are left really satisfied afterwards.

Also Blockbuster movies are a one-trick pony. You walk in, leave your brain at the door and walk out and it's over. An art film may require multiple viewings but you get a different experience everytime and the really good ones never get old with repeated viewings.

By the way...I try to like ALL movies I watch and I usually do end up liking them.

quote:

---

No. Transformers was a good popcorn flick that gave everybody what they wanted. Some good effects and fight scenes. But they didn't go too overboard with it.
TF2 didn't even try. There were around 40 transformers in that movie. All fighting and you couldn't name a 1/3 of em. And it was in your face to the point where you didn't even know wtf was going on, except there were a crap ton of transformers fighting.

---

+1

I liked transformers

The second one was just bad.

quote:

---

Because stupid writing, bad acting, and unlikeable characters are unforgivable for some.

It takes an engaging plot with engaging characters to get me to give a shite about anything that is happening on the screen.

---

This. Unless its so stupid its hilarious (like Monty Python or Mel Brooks), I find these things to be unforgivable. Yeah I can let a few things slide if its a great thrill ride, but the thing that most of these popcorn flicks lack these days are good characters. Anyone can come up with a decent plot, but it takes skill to create good characters.

quote:

---

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it's about it. And since "blockbusters" tend to tread safely with all the money involved, they have a greater propensity for getting hated on. I have never seen anyone outright dismiss them though. There are many acclaimed action films.

---

quote:

---

1000 BC or whatever that load of crap was

---

That may be the worst film I've ever seen, and if not its certainly in the top 10. The plot holes in Transformers 2 don't have shite on 10,000 B.C.

quote:

---

See, I can't do Bay (outside of the glorious hamminess of Con Air). It's the way he just overuses cuts. It hurts my head.

---

I'd agree with this, but I don't know, I just enjoy his style and don't try to wrap my head around often bad editing (outside of action scenes) and lame plots.

quote:

---

pop corn flicks

---

I generally don't like mindless action films. There are some that I do really enjoy but they tend to be more well developed. "The Rock" is one example. The villain wasn't one dimensional, in fact, his motive could be considered valiant. That made for a better movie, and it still had lots of explosions and shite.

I guess I can't really talk bad about the mindless action flick crowd because, well, I really love mindless comedies. Those are my popcorn flicks. Hell, I'll watch those straight to DVD 'American Pie' type movies and love the shite out of them. So if I show any any film snobbery then I'm being a bit hypocritical, I guess.

quote:

---

B, Con Air wasn't Bay. But I have a feeling Simon West must've gone to the Michael Bay school of film directing...

---

Well, that explains why I liked it, then. And it's not like I sit there analyzing the editing during a Bay film, I mean the process of watching so many jump cuts makes me dizzy and literally gives me a pounding headache. Bay movies cause me physical pain, and not in a metaphorical sense. I mean that I take Tylenol after watching one of his movies.

So, movies that make me physically ill are not ones I'm inclined to like.