MovieChat Forums > SisterSuzy101 > Replies
SisterSuzy101's Replies
I mentioned this on another thread a while back:
<blockquote> I feel this movie falls into the trap that many other live-action adaptations of cartoons do - be over-reliant on the live-action transition as a gimmick, rather than focus on good storytelling, characters, and humor.
One major difference though, is that while other adaptations of this type tend to cater only to children (and real little children at that) and pander to them with scatological humor, cheap slapstick, and other forms of stupidity (Scooby Doo, Inspector Gadget etc.), The Flintstones goes into the complete opposite direction, focusses a bit too much on the adult-orientated themes that it's nearly inaccessible to children and families.
I mean, do kids really care that much about office politics, extramarital affairs, financial problems, mother-in-law dramas, or embezzlement? Not really. Sure, one could argue that the sets, costumes, and puppets may be entertaining, but they serve only as gimmicks (see above) which eventually wear off.
I feel like The Flintstones movie could've been a good adventure story, maybe with some coming-of-age elements and/or conflict resolutions, like Toy Story or A Goofy Movie (both 1995). I mean, in a fantasy prehistoric setting, the possibilities are beyond numerous. But no, instead the writers chose the most dullest route imaginable.</blockquote>
Misguided and delusional?
Yeah, might wanna take a good look at yourself there.
And you’re clearly stalking, made so by your lack of other contribution to this particular board other than to come slam me without a proper rebuttal.
Attention seeking, are we?
As previously said, find yourself a hobby!
And be careful on that high horse, yeah? It’s a long way down…
Yeah, I stopped responding because that pathetic debate was going round in circles, and in end proved to be nothing but a string of straw men arguments from you.
I’ve got better things to do with my time.
And then what, you start stalking me on these boards? And even PM’d me about me not responding to your last post?
I thought your name looked familiar.
Get a hobby, man!
On the contrary, I know EXACTLY what I’m talking about.
You don’t have any counter arguments, so you have to resort to lazy, butthurt put downs!
To this day, I still don’t get why so many fans complain about Joyce’s death.
Yes, she was innocent and her death was tragic, but isn’t that the point? It’s symbolic of Bobby’s deception and incompetence - once shrouded by his hero façade and now revealed.
And come on!! Let’s not make out that Jigsaw’s games, whether constructed by John, Hoffman or Amanda, were all about fairness until this point!
Saw 3D had many problems, but this wasn’t one of them as I’m concerned.
The general consensus is that the first Saw is the best but I chalk that down to the whole “first is always the best” doctrine that way too many people will just blindly accept without question.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s BY FAR the most overrated!!!
OK, I somewhat respect it for being the introduction to such an iconic horror franchise, but that’s as far as it really goes.
Simply put, the pacing is tedious, the premise is dull and is not as original and many proclaim it to be (basically a Se7en rip-off), and the main characters and performances aren’t anything special (sorry Adam and Dr. Gordon fans).
Then there are the so-called “amazing twists” that are actually really stupid:
Like, why would the mastermind behind the whole thing pretend to be a corpse in the bathroom? John gains literally nothing from it at all that he wouldn't get from just watching the security camera. Why would he need to be there in the room with them pretending to be a corpse? And also, wouldn't it be incredibly easy for them to tell that he's not dead? Even if he took some muscle relaxant (like Saw III retconned in), he'd still need to, you know... breath.
And believe it or not, you move slightly when you breathe. No way two people in very close proximity to him, one of which is literally an experienced doctor, wouldn't be able to tell he's not dead.
And then there’s the whole twist with Zep which was f’ing stupid too.
Like, he's clearly showing sadistic pleasure when terrorising Gordon's family and watching the game through the monitors, yet we're expected to believe that he's simply following the rules for his survival?
On top of that, Zep’s just an all-round lame villain - he’s not interesting nor intimidating, just flat-out annoying!
Now, I’m a fan of the Saw series as a whole, with Saw II being the film that solidified my liking for said series.
Saw II had a better premise, better pacing, better introduction to the iconic villain, John Kramer (AKA Jigsaw), and a much better twist - one that at least makes sense within the context of the narrative and is sufficiently foreshadowed while still being a surprise.
I take it you haven't seen any of the other movies I mentioned then? They literally make ROTF look Oscar-worthy in comparison.
The best example being X-Men Origins: Wolverine, giving that it's also a big-budget action blockbuster from a bankable franchise.
Trite, boring origin story with sloppily filmed action sequences and hideous special effects (at least ROTF didn't have bad CGI) - and all for a budget of 150 million? It was so bad that it fell well below expectations at the box office, dismissed by fans, and all future X-Men movies ignored it entirely.
If anything, that movie should've swept most of the Razzies that year.
Honestly, the traps in this movie are less slapstick and more outright dangerous, with Kevin seemingly out to maim the sticky bandits rather than fend them off.
The old west setting in Part III, while not 100% accurate/realistic, still felt much more 'organic' than the tacky and gimmicky depiction of the "future" in Part II.
Honestly, the first act of Part II felt way too parody-esque, which I could forgive if that was intentional but am not convinced given that the rest of the film goes down the hyper-serious route.
Griff is supposed to be a more threatening version of Biff, but just comes off as OTT and annoying with obvious overacting on Tom Wilson's part (Buford was a much better antagonist). All the costumes and makeup added to 'age' the characters look hideous in retrospect - and don't even get me started on MJ playing his future daughter! SMH.
<blockquote>Utterly absurd defence of what you know is a gaping plot hole in the first film.</blockquote>
Not absurd at all. You know there's a difference between a plot point that directly contradicts another (i.e. a plot hole) and something simply isn't elaborately explained, right?
Seriously, this:
<blockquote>like why aren’t George and Lorraine gobsmacked that their son Marty looks and sounds identical to that amazing, mysterious guy who appeared to them in 1955 called ‘Marty’??</blockquote>
Cannot be compared to this:
<blockquote>The scene where Doc tells Marty that travelling into the future from the altered present to stop Biff stealing the time machine would be impossible, even though previously Biff was able to return to the seemingly unaltered future after completing his mission.</blockquote>
<blockquote>the extremes of light and dark in II are clearly less extreme than BTTF’s blend of sweet romantic comedy with mother-son incest, incestuous sexual molestation</blockquote>
No, they are not. Part II bounces from a campy parody-esque first act to hyper-dark and largely charmless second-third act that takes itself too seriously, as if it doesn't know what it really wants to be. And it's made worse with the obvious narrative inconsistencies (already mentioned).
And I'm sorry, but you lost me when you argued that Part I included mother-son incest. Young and naïve Lorraine was merely attracted to Marty whom she didn't know was her future son, which not only made him uncomfortable but also added a barrier to her falling for George and therefore putting his existence at steak.
<blockquote>Absurd nit-picks.
</blockquote>
Really? I don't think there's anything 'absurd' about my observations. But if you want to address and properly refute anything I've brought up, you're welcome to...
<blockquote>If you’re going to be that anal then you’d need to tear into the first film - like why aren’t George and Lorraine gobsmacked that their son Marty looks and sounds identical to that amazing, mysterious guy who appeared to them in 1955 called ‘Marty’??</blockquote>
I'm familiar with this common observation, and I think it raises some interesting questions. But is it really a plot hole?
Who knows? Maybe this was something George and Lorraine talked about in an offscreen conversation - that their son bared a lot of resemblance to someone they once knew (and likely named him after), but probably dismissed it as a mere coincidence.
<blockquote>And there was plenty of darkness in BTTF - Marty’s siblings disappearing limb-by-limb in the photo was creepy af, as was his hand starting to vanish while he was playing guitar.</blockquote>
Whoever said that the first movie didn't have it's dark moments? All I said is that it balanced the light drama and comedy nicely and was serious where necessary.
And if you think my gripe with the sequel is purely it's "dark" aspect, then you clearly have not read my reply correctly.
<blockquote>It’s the third film that falls short by lacking much of the fun and invention of I and II, replacing it with a misjudged ‘Doc falls in love’ plotline.</blockquote>
So where exactly do you think the 3rd movie was lacking such things? Being stuck in the late 19th Century posed new and dangerous challenges to overcome, especially with the limited and outdated technology they needed to utilise to achieve their goals in a race against time.
And I for one liked the romantic subplot with Doc and Clara, as it added layers to his character and showed that he's more than just an eccentric scientist. It also gave him a dilemma to overcome - to do what his mind or his heart says.
In the second movie he's mostly just a flanderized exposition machine.
Confused and dumb? Yeah sorry, sounds more like a problem with the movie itself than the audience.
Seriously, I counted MANY plot holes and narrative inconsistencies:
1). The scene where Doc tells Marty that travelling into the future from the altered present to stop Biff stealing the time machine would be impossible, even though previously Biff was able to return to the seemingly unaltered future after completing his mission. Why???
2). The movies' opening negates one of the biggest points established in the first movie, as travelling into the future to prevent things that haven't happened yet is both unnecessary (especially as they could be prevented simply by writing a note) and risky, and the characters already know the risks and dangers of such interference, having literally JUST experienced them.
Now, I know that's how the first movie ended, but it was originally intended as a throwaway gag as no sequel was planned, but apparently, they underestimated how much demand there would be for one. Bob Gale himself said that they would've ended the original film differently had a sequel been intended from the get-go.
3). The aspect where the characters are in a constant rush, which is moot at best considering that they have a fully functioning time machine with no technical problems.
It made perfect sense to rush in the first and third movies because with the time machine damaged, threats to their existence and getting back to the present at stake, they were literally in a race against time.
And those are just a handful of examples…
Now, you could argue that I’m merely overthinking and taking it all too seriously. But the fact is, much of the movie IS taking itself quite seriously with the intention of being thought-provoking and at times does come off as pretentious – which brings me to the next point regarding tonal inconsistency:
The over-the-top and campy (too campy for my liking) first act set in the future doesn't fit well with the dark and super-serious approach the rest of the film has – whereas the original film and the 3rd balanced the light drama and comedy nicely and was serious where necessary (climactic sequences near the end etc.).
On a similar note, while it might seem needlessly nit-picky to point out how inaccurate this version of the near future (2015) is, this outdated factor is a major contrast to the other two movies’ sense of timelessness.
With all that said, it's no wonder this sequel received such a polarised response among critics and fans during its' initial release.
Reception has improved overtime, yes, though I feel that's mainly due to the growth in classic status the original 1985 movie received and becoming part of a trilogy that's just as iconic overall as said movie.
I think its main problem is the tonal inconsistency.
It bounces from OTT campy/goofball comedy, to dark and serious Sci-Fi (the latter of which seems to take itself too seriously and at times, feels pretentious), to rehashing too much of the first movie’s third act - as if it doesn’t know what it wants to be.
At least the other two movies seemed more focused.
Nedry is a probable addict who likely gambled or overspent everything he got. Very overweight people are frequently addicts in multiple domains, and their addictions are often very destructive and poorly managed.
He likely bid low on the job because he was immensely talented (another result of his addictive tendencies) but often unconscientious, which led to his disastrous escape attempt and whatever previous mistakes Hammond was referring to.
The “evil capitalist who ruins everything” is quite stale at this point, might you agree? Even if Hammond had paid everyone through the roof, things could still have gone wrong in the exact same way if Dodgson was able to offer more (and the inciting incident had nothing to do with worker’s compensation).
I have to say, Tenet was easily one of the most disappointing movie experiences from recent memory - so much so that I've not even bothered with Oppenheimer.
Discovered how to copy and paste now, have we?
Well done...
<blockquote> It sucks and it's highly regarded as the worst of the sequels </blockquote>
That’s weird. Last I checked, IMDb still rates it at #4 out of the 10 movies.
See for yourself: https://m.imdb.com/list/ls527952892/
Now granted, it’s only one source but a very reliable one at that - one that’s based on public polls and not one subjective opinion.
Plus, many fans I’ve spoken to consider it among the best as well.
And you have yet to give any real reason as to why Saw III is as objectively bad as you claim.
Why should we take your word for it?
That’s your opinion.
Many found it very interesting and captivating, particularly in the way it explored the relationship between John and Amanda, and his psychology (though some found the brutality a bit much).
There’s a reason it remains the top grossing entry in the franchise, and among the highest rated of the sequels.
From best to worst:
1. Saw X
2. Saw II
3. Saw III
4. Saw VI
5. Saw IV
6. Jigsaw
7. Saw V
8. Saw 3D/VII
9. Saw
10. Spiral
How so?