The reverse of that post I’ve made a week ago…
Rules: pick one movie or series and explain why you actually enjoyed it despite the criticism.
For me: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movies, by far the best ST stuff ever made, I couldn’t take seriously the original universe with the dated effects and stiff acting, same goes for NG… These movies did ST actually great looking and much more believable, not just the effects.
Zardoz. Say what you will about Sean Connery running around in a bright red romper, it was original.
Super Mario Bros. with Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo. I don’t care how bad it is. It’s in the campy so-bad it’s good pool of movies and nothing anyone says can change my mind. The fact that they were drunk off their asses just makes it even funnier in my opinion.
I thought Waterworld was fine.
Not sure if it was HATED, but Hook if we’re going by reviews. I can’t imagine any kid seeing that movie and not loving it though.
I’m not even going to call it a guilty pleasure, but Josie and the Pussycats was a movie that I genuinely adored long before people started to appreciate it for the satire that it is.
As a CIS male I got endlessly mocked, but I stuck to my guns.
Wild Wild West has a 16% on Rotten Tomatoes but I genuinely enjoy that film. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen also at 16% and also a movie I enjoyed
Waterworld and Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.
Waterworld is ocean Fallout and RHPoT is fucking meme central. Plus RH is my childhood nostalgia movie, I’ve probably watched it over a couple hundred times just on VHS.
Johnny Mnemonic. Keanu cannot act for shit in it, the story isn’t exactly gripping, hell the action in it is somewhere in the shitter. Oh, and Henry Rollins is a nerdy doctor. All if it adds up to a campy trip of slop that triggers my guilty pleasure.
For me, it’s the movie Waterworld. I cannot get enough of that movie. So many people hated it. 🤣
Haters: it’s just Mad Max on water
Me: that’s awesome
I like Waterworld, and I like The Postman.
Postman was great! The book is worth a read, too.
The joke in my friend group was that Waterworld was Dances with Wolves on water. The Postman was Waterworld on land. Dances with Wolves was the Postman with Native Americans. Toss in whichever parallel you feel works best to not actually say the movie you’re putting on.
DRY LAND!!!
I dont understand the hate other than cosner was the guy to hate in that era.
I’ve never understood Costner hate. He’s a good actor who stars in a lot of good movies.
Solid Film. Quirky characters. Everyone seems to be having fun.
It inspired me to buy a kayak a few years back to have my Autistic Fish Man Summer.
If paper is the most valuable substance in the entire world, then why are they continuously smoking cigarettes that are rolled in paper? That would be like eating a chunk of gold every hour.
Have you ever smoked? When you’re addicted you’d trade in a chunk of gold for a cigarette if necessary.
I once walked 10 miles to get cigarettes, so yeah, I guess I get that.
In my headcanon it’s some kind of smokable kelp wrapped in different kelp.
Pretty sure when I went to WB world or whatever as a kid they had one of those 15min live shows of it. Jestskis and a few explosions. Surly it can’t be thst unpopular.
It’s a fine movie, but people really don’t like being reminded of climate change or other environment issues. Same thing with Avatar. If you cast an environmentalist as a villain though, people seem to like it.
That was the first that came to mind, but I didn’t know it was very hated, just thought it bombed at the box office opening weekend because it was in competition with another movie that was way more popular.
Star Wars Ep 1 gets more hate than it deserves. It’s not a masterpiece by any means, but it’s enjoyable.
The Postman. Compared to other post apocalyptic cheese fests it feels like a more nuanced display of societal breakdown and the re-emergence of the barter economy.
Rat Race
Matrix 2 & 3. I don’t see, or watch, them as separate movies. Rather, together with Matrix 1, they form one big masterpiece for me. But I can see that it doesn’t really fit the 100 minutes format audiences came to expect, and breaking it in three parts did not do it any good. Plus, I guess I’m just a fan of long movies as I’ve also sat through the original, restored “Until the End of the World,” which runs for about 5 hours.
As a non-fan, I thought the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies were well received. All the casual trek fans around me seemed to like them, at least
For me: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movies, by far the best ST stuff ever made, I couldn’t take seriously the original universe with the dated effects and stiff acting, same goes for NG… These movies did ST actually great looking and much more believable, not just the effects.
Just kidding… but not really.
Yeah, to each their own, but if you think this, you don’t understand why people like Star Trek.
Maybe I do understand why people like Star Trek, but I just don’t like that myself?
Dude if in universe they talk about hyper advanced races or warlords without mercy or AI and all the have is actors in shitty make up or awful “martial arts” and sword fighting, then the new movies are better by default. It’s about immersion
I say this purely tongue in cheek.
Enjoy your polished turd. But don’t look directly at it. It will blind you with lens flare.
Funny thing, I didn’t even really notice the lense flares until people started complaining about it… I guess when you live with something like that all the time (thanks, astigmatism), seeing it on screen just doesn’t have the same effect on you
Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone with this confusing of an opinion. And I’ve met Trump supporters that love Star Trek.
The new movies are more credible and feel more real for a sci fi movie, is that hard to understand?
You… You are aware just how much tech and effects have progressed in the last sixty years… Right? What they were doing was groundbreaking for the time, pretty much every time.
It was not great even for it’s time. It was passable and I’m also talking about the movie version of those old series with Kirk and Picard. Star wars came like what… A couple of years after? And looked much better, the next gen movies came after the old trilogy and still couldn’t look better…
The final results are what matter. With sci-fi, the special effects are a primordial part. Also I’m not just talking about effects. Old material was acted like a radio play or theatre… Not a fan. That slowly changed with next generation but still wasn’t enough.
JJ Abrams movies are “ST if it was actually on our world”. And the actors are EXCELLENT, even the haters admit all of them did excellent evocations of the old actors, some of them actually felt like the same actor but younger, which wasn’t necessary since that could alienate the viewer but whatever, it worked.
I don’t have any strong feelings about Star Trek. But I know enough to treat it as a piece of philosophy. It was never about the most advanced visual effects possible (although some of the effects and makeup are quite impressive imo). Star Trek was an investigation into what it means to be human, and the morality behind that. If there was cool tech stuff, that was bonus.
It’s hard to compare the two (original series vs. JJ Abrams), being across such vast differences in time (relative to the progress of technology and style in filmmaking) but its impossible if you’re just going to outright denounce all the qualities the original had for its time.
Star wars came like what… A couple of years after? And looked much better
Star Trek (1966-1969)
Star Wars (1977)
You do the math.
It was not great even for it’s time. It was passable… With sci-fi, the special effects are a primordial part.
What are you comparing it to? The progress in filmmaking during that time was ridiculous. The steadicam hadn’t even been invented yet so shots were much more static. For the time, people were blown away by the sets and effects.
Also I’m not just talking about effects. Old material was acted like a radio play or theatre… Not a fan.
All the acting and direction in every show and movie at that time was stilted and stiff and yes, very akin to a play. That was the time of Adam West Batman. You don’t have to be a fan. But your statements about it not being good for its time are… Ignorant? At best.
JJ Abrams movies are “ST if it was actually on our world”.
You’re delusional is you think “actually in our world” is measured by the visual effects technology and the progress of film/TV acting and direction of the time. Connection with the real world is quite literally what set Star Trek apart and made it change the course of sci fi film and television. It took real world politics and social issues and made them part of a sci fi story.
But if epic CGI space battles and intrusive lens flare from non-existent lights is your definition of reality, there’s not much else we can say.
actually, it’s about imagination
No is not. These aren’t books, it’s an audio visual media. Seeing Kirk in a bad looking cardboard looking set pretending to be another planet with soap opera acting won’t sell the idea
This is a bit right? You’re doing a bit? …right?
What are you talking about?
I’m with you. Both that I enjoyed the movie and don’t understand the point this guy trying to make.
Yeah, those crappy TV shows had brainwashed him
Ngl, I’m with you, holy crap they seem absolutely miserable.
@Platypus@lemmings.world I say this with all the love for a stranger I can have in my heart:
