name another movie that pissed off as many people as Mulan - Mulan (2020) Discussion

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

Ghostbusters 2016.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

That’s what I was going to say

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

It's the message board that I'm pretty sure shut down the IMDb's message boards. I think the sheer volume of back-and-forth toxicity became too much sewage for the mods to handle and it was exponentially generating more and more archived pages that were clogging up their site and mucking with the bottom line and they just said, "Screw it" and dumped everything.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

That’s too bad. I do not understand why people get a kick out of being rude and offensive to strangers online.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

I didn't understand why people make movies into pseudo-political warzones. They moved on from Ghostbusters to Joker (this time the Left were up in arms and the Right thought it was the greatest film of all time - all before the movie was released/seen, of course!) and they've picked one movie at a time to play politics with, so it seems to me. The latest is Cuties, which is either applauded for having a female POC writer/director who has a message film about exploitation and sexualisation of young girls or derided for being soft-core kiddy porn and sexualising the very girls it purports to liberate. (I haven't seen it; I'm staying out of it).

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I have not seen any of those movies, and don’t have interest in seeing any of them. There is a segment of society that wants to politicize everything. And there are narcissistic people who can not accept anyone disagreeing with them. I’m not sure about your assessment of Joker. I know right wing people who disliked it intensely and said it glorified crime. Either way, I’m not going to see it.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

I haven't seen Ghostbusters (I was tuning out from the minute Melissa McCarthy was announced as starring - she's in the same boat as Seth Rogen for me in that I don't care for either of them - and I was right out after the first (awful) trailer). I haven't seen Cuties, either, and I don't want to. I loved Joker. It's one of the best and freshest takes on superhero (supervillain) comic book films in awhile. I didn't like it as much as Logan, but it's up there for me.

After the movie came out the dialogue shifted a bit, but my recollection in the lead up was that, at some point, some site or other published a "hot take" op-ed about the upcoming Joker film saying that it looked like it was about some incel white male who was going to revenge himself on the world and all the little incels would be empowered by this. More and more movie blogs started picking up on this, Left wingers were pre-hating it for supporting alt-right victimhood culture and Right wingers were piling up saying it was going to be great and shut up, and the battle lines were drawn. Of course, the outrage ignored the fact that the Joker is (and always has been) a heinous, evil villain (so any actions taken by him should be seen, maybe, as criticism?)

Then the film came out and it was, in my opinion, a little more politically savvy and nuanced than one might think. The lead is a bit incel-ish, but he's also suffering from mental health struggles and is let down by a capitalist system that won't care for the weak and needy. He is psychotic and kills people, but sparks a not-unlike-Antifa movement and by the end of the movie, you've got sympathy for the downtrodden, hopeless masses looking for change, you've got sympathy for the people trying to run or work the system, you've got sympathy for this guy who's just trying to survive in a world that doesn't understand him, but you also hate that he's going deeper and deeper into madness and psychosis. It's pretty good stuff.

reply

[–] Forky (1739) 4 years ago

i liked it

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5470) 4 years ago

You sure it is the movie and not Disney that people are pissed off at?

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15105) 4 years ago

The Last Jedi

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

but did the movie piss of anyone.

It started with the actresses view's.
Then the story wasn't the same as the animation.
Then the filming location.
Then disney sold its soul to china.

But hardly anyone spoke of the film content itself apart from later on to say it was ok and kinda boring or lacking emotion.

reply

[–] robocat893 (16251) 4 years ago

Captain Marvel (2019)

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker :p

reply

[–] darkpast (9028) 4 years ago

The Last Airbender

reply

[–] User548 (2068) 4 years ago

That's a good one!

For me, JJ Trek 2009.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

I know a few people who REALLY hate Star Trek '09, but that movie generally didn't produce a lot of ire. It was pretty popular, if I recall correctly.

reply

[–] User548 (2068) 4 years ago

I really hate it and looking back now, it is why the Trek franchise is in the creative gutter.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

Trek's problems right now are many-fold.

First, it's kind of a "shy" show when done right. It doesn't have big action, it doesn't showcase soap opera-style romantic entanglements, and it prides itself on more careful solutions to problems. Most audiences don't want the Picard style of "These aliens aren't deliberately harming us, so I won't let you kill them even though the ship is in danger; they have a right to live just as much as we do."

It's also essentially built on monster-of-the-week stuff. I believe they're trying something different with Discovery...? Anyway, today's audiences are looking for story arcs.

Wouldn't you say the franchise took its first big hits (in awhile) from Star Trek: Enterprise and Star Trek: Nemesis? I feel like those are better canaries in the coal mine.

reply

[–] User548 (2068) 4 years ago

No. Nemesis wasn't a good story and Enterprise went in the prequel direction which didn't resonate with fans. The episodes were hit and miss and the characters weren't the greatest.

JJ Trek is horrid. It allowed hack writers Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof into the door and they will never leave. Their stupid production companies of Bad Robot and Secret Hideout infest the Trek franchise now. The direction they went was the dumb route. Dumb down the stories. Dumb down the villains. Throw a bunch of action on screen. And of course, throw out all canon previous to JJ Trek. Unacceptable.

Look at the franchise now. The can't sell Lower Decks to any distributors other than themselves. They have no faith in the leadership running it now, but they've already signed their contract so idiot, Kurtzman is holding the franchise hostage.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

I'm not as familiar with the politics as you are (the stuff regarding Lower Decks and production companies mostly), but I see your point with the "action movie" stuff and dumbing it down. I'll push back a bit, though, with Nemesis, which I felt was basically a dumb action movie with some goofy plot twists that felt a little "Michael Bay". BUT I'm not pushing too much, because I also understand your point that Nemesis might have been a crumby movie, but it wasn't a Trojan Horse for action movie stuff infiltrating Trek.

For myself, I did enjoy Star Trek '09, but I'm not pretending like it was high art or "true" Star Trek; it was just a dumb, loud, fun action movie. In terms of mythology, it doesn't bug me any more than the Star Wars prequels do because my headcanon just keeps the Original Series and Original Trilogy where they were were and ignores the other stuff.

reply

[–] User548 (2068) 4 years ago

Actually, the action stuff infiltrated Trek from First Contact.

You have to understand that some of the things that JJ Trek did to canon was mind boggling stupid. The biggest one is trans-warp beaming. Anybody can now beam light years away. What's the point of ships, if you can beam to Alpha Centauri, in 2 seconds? That is how poor the writing was. This isn't a throw away canonical fact. This was integral in telling their story in JJ Trek 2009 and into Darkness.

Although what you said is technically correct, this is how I see it. As a fan of Trek and Star Wars, given the keys to JJ for both, is like telling a burglar to house sit your home. When you get back, everything is gone and you'll be left devastated.

When a Trek or Wars movie is made, you won't see another one in 3-4 years regardless if it's good or bad. As a fan, I want a quality movie. However, quality and JJ are not synonymous. We got crap, and because it was a financial success somewhat, there was no need to change up the creative team, so we got even crappier crap the second go around. With Wars, it was a trifecta of crap.

Helmed under a different director and not introducing JJ's crony hack writers, there is no reason why we couldn't have had a quality Trek movie or a quality Wars movie. He has single handedly turned two beloved franchises down the path of ruin. It will still take years for both Trek and Wars to regain the goodwill they have now lost.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

First Contact was pretty action-heavy, but it seemed appropriate in-context - to me, anyway. I remember watching Nemesis and it came to the dune buggy action scene and I remember thinking that it felt wrong and it wasn't "Star Trekky" and it seemed like any old generic action movie. As opposed to, say, trying to prevent the Borg from taking over the deflector dish and getting a zero-g space walk action scene, or the cleverness of using the holodeck to throw the Borg off and defeat them. Those are action scenes, but they felt more integrated, and both felt like they still had the flavour of Trek.

Though, I do see your point: that was a marker for a more action-oriented Star Trek film. Couldn't an argument be made for Wrath of Khan, then, though? After all, that was an action-heavy film in a franchise that previously had three seasons of "classic" sci-fi in the vein of the short fiction writers from the old pulpy magazines followed up by one feature film which was like "2001: A Space Odyssey Goes to Hollywood" (I'm being glib; I do actually enjoy the first Star Trek film).

J.J.'s biggest problems, to me, are his script selection. I'm not sure how much he's shaping the stories; I assume he has some involvement, though, because they share the same flaws and strengths most of the time. They're always fun, they move at a good clip, and they provide good entertainment, but their plots are flimsy, the worlds they build are slapdash, and they don't care at all about the before or after - only in-the-moment. This makes for exciting action, but nothing substantial or sustaining over a long period.

I think Abrams might do best to get a really, REALLY basic plot to film. I'm thinking like 300 or something like that. He needs a film that is only building "right now". Because the tragedy here is that he does know how to present material well. In that regard he's a good director. He's just flailing around at the story level.

reply

[–] User548 (2068) 4 years ago

First Contact was a good movie overall.

Trek II was action oriented compared to Trek I, but it had a decent story. Straight revenge story, with a sub-plot of Kirk getting old and not commanding a ship anymore. They made it more about the characters, which was the right decision. The movies require a more quicker pace and a bit more emphasis on action given the bigger budget to work with all works well.

In regards to JJ, he is full of himself. He had to inject himself as a writer in Wars and thus, ruined Michael Arndt's treatment for the trilogy. When he doesn't write, he introduced the dynamic dunces, Orci and Kurtzman. Go look at their filmography. Horrid writing through and through. Sure, they are fine for Transformers and other brain dead franchises, but not Trek. Him as a Trek showrunner? What a joke.

Even JJ as just a director, he's mediocre at best. Sure, he can stay on budget and direct an action setpiece, but he doesn't have any vision. All he does is copy other directors. He doesn't bring anything new to the table. Constant shaky cam. Pointless dutch angle shots. Overemphasis on lens flares.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

Wrath of Khan's "Kirk gets old" angle is the best part. It plays into the "no win scenario" idea (death/age *are* coming - deal with it) so well, and it's a unique angle to a character that we know so well; it brings something fresh and surprising to the series.

The action in WoK also suits the story. They're not just putting in an "action beat" because they are required to, they've worked the story so that it happens organically and feels good.

This might be a long-shot, but you don't have Michael Arndt's treatment (or a link to it) anywhere, do you? I love reading stuff like that.

But I digress...

Yeah, J.J. Abrams doesn't have the writing chops and he shouldn't try to work story angles at all. I still think he's pretty good at making a movie flow, so I think he's better than just mediocre, but yeah, he's not winning the Palme d'Or, is he?

reply

[–] User548 (2068) 4 years ago

What is it that we so like about Trek? It's the characters. They are iconic and telling the story of Kirk getting old was a great nuance to the story. Khan himself was a very colorful villain and that makes it fun.

I do not. I don't know anybody that does as I don't think Disney wants any of that info released. I know Michael Arndt wasn't too pleased being pushed out by JJ and his consolation prize was getting a writing credit for Disney VII. Even Arndt hasn't said anything publicly so I'm pretty sure he had to sign an NDA.

JJ was a writer before he became a director. Look at some of his writing credits. Armageddon seemed to be his highlight. Not only that, he seemed to have taken Michael Bay as his mentor. Everybody gave him credit for being a Spielberg lite, because he ripped off ET with Super 8, yet most of his movies resemble Armageddon.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 4 years ago

Characters (and cast chemistry) are, I think, one of the most important elements to an enduring story. In Star Trek, the concepts that are explored are fascinating, but if it wasn't for us yearning with Data for him to further his quest for humanity, we wouldn't dig in the way we do. City on the Edge of Forever isn't remembered because they travel through time and learn about timelines and altering history, it's remembered because of that human moment that caps off the journey. Lord of the Rings has epic battle scenes and a breathtaking, full-feeling mythological world, but what we really dig is the friendship between Frodo and Sam.

It was a long-shot, but I thought I'd ask. Hey, Arndt! If you're reading this, private message us some outline copies!

I'm trying not to be too critical of Abrams, because he's done a heck of a lot better than most could, but I am trying to be realistic about where he sits in the pantheon of directors. He is, as you say, somewhere in Michael Bay territory. Now, I don't really hate Bay, either; The Rock is good, dumb fun. But he's no auteur. He's an action-man.

On Abrams' filmography, the best film I think he's done might actually be Super 8. I enjoyed Star Trek and MI:3, but they're just kinda "action movies". Super 8 did have some heart to it and the kids were well-written (ie, they acted like kids instead of tiny adults). I really liked Fringe a lot, too. Fringe was a really great show.

I never thought of him as "Michael Bay 2" before, but yeah, you're kinda right there...

reply