Things in movies that really annoy you

Tony EH

:pac:

While we're talking about zombies and things that annoy in films...

Well then put in Zombies that run.

One of the stupidist flippin ideas ever.

Zach Snyder...I'm looking at you! :mad:

Stimpyone

MOC88 wrote: »

Hence the idea of diggin a ditch??? Zombies would relentlessly walk in to a big hole in the ground - you just douse them in alchol and set them alight every few days for entertainment - after a few months there shouldn't be any left within a radius
Besides Humvees are designed to go through all terrain/roll over bodies etc. - military design
Besides if it got stuck I suppose I can open the door and walk (slowly) away as my speed of 40 mph would have put some distance between mea nd said starving zombies. I can then proceed to the closest shop/supermarket - get the vodka put them in a trolley some cloth, food, water - go to the nearest
2 story building - go upstairs - now I'm being careful to make sure I don't run in to anything - but thanks to picking up a gun (its in the u.s after all)
i'm pretty okay.
Now I can stay here for a while- zombie horde cover entrance - no problem they're all in a big crowd - one molotov should take care of that - seeing as they clump together and don't know the stop, drop and roll maneuvore - only the stop burn and disintegrate one
or maybe I can setup an airhorn a mile away on top of a building attracting everything there?
and I can live off tinned food for quite a while and thanks to the reduction in population- there should be plenty to spare

The problem is the zombie shuffle - now if they changed it to zombies can run and run up stairs/ climb ladders then you don't have a hope other than finding an aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine and hide out in alaska for a few years. Thats why I hate the program - it could have been so good. Its why all zombie films in the last number of years have had zombies that can run-

Ah, but you see, the biggest threat in a zombie apocalypse isn’t the zombies, it’s the other survivors!!.... duh, duh, duuuunnnn.

Oh, and fast zombies are just stupid. Being zombified should be a hindrance not a superpower.

--Kaiser--

Tony EH wrote: »

:pac:

While we're talking about zombies and things that annoy in films...

Well then put in Zombies that run.

One of the stupidist flippin ideas ever.

Zach Snyder...I'm looking at you! :mad:

I think Danny Boyle got there first with 28 days later....
Slow walking zombies are the least scary thing ever, after kittens

Stimpyone

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I think Danny Boyle got there first with 28 days later....
Slow walking zombies are the least scary thing ever, after kittens

I hate to be pedantic but they weren’t zombies in 28 days later. They were infected with a virus.

JohnMarston

Stimpyone wrote: »

I hate to be pedantic but they weren’t zombies in 28 days later. They were infected with a virus.

Thats true, the telltale sign was that they ran or sprinted. Dead people are subject to rigormortis.

Which reminds me of another thing that irks me, Zombies running in modern day adaptations.

Sleepy

The biggest one for me is the portrayal of women in movies, particularly rom-coms:

Pious, self-absorbed, whiney, shrew-like, cunts that behave with zero thought as to the consequences of their actions (nevermind actually having any rationale for those actions in the first place) and yet seem to live utterly charmed lives where, despite their own ability to earn enough to live in a luxury apartment in Manhattan, walk everywhere in Jimmy Choos and wear designer clothing (rather than stuff from Penneys or it's US equivalent) from baking cupcakes / writing drivel / "being fabulous" etc. they still end up being fawned upon by a handsome and charming billionaire. :rolleyes:

Just think of any character played by Katherine Heigl, Sarah Jessica Parker or Kate Hudson.

These are not good role-models for our daughters and movies are woefully short on smart, educated and self-aware women. Give them River Song, Ellen Ripley or Clarice Starling to aspire to be like, not some snivelling bitch to help foster a sense of entitlement.

(and what's even sadder than our kids being influenced in this way is the grown adults who see these characters as lifestyle guides rather than satire).

Quorum

Sleepy wrote: »

The biggest one for me is the portrayal of women in movies, particularly rom-coms:

Pious, self-absorbed, whiney, shrew-like, cunts that behave with zero thought as to the consequences of their actions (nevermind actually having any rationale for those actions in the first place) and yet seem to live utterly charmed lives where, despite their own ability to earn enough to live in a luxury apartment in Manhattan, walk everywhere in Jimmy Choos and wear designer clothing (rather than stuff from Penneys or it's US equivalent) from baking cupcakes / writing drivel / "being fabulous" etc. they still end up being fawned upon by a handsome and charming billionaire. :rolleyes:

Just think of any character played by Katherine Heigl, Sarah Jessica Parker or Kate Hudson.

These are not good role-models for our daughters and movies are woefully short on smart, educated and self-aware women. Give them River Song, Ellen Ripley or Clarice Starling to aspire to be like, not some snivelling bitch to help foster a sense of entitlement.

(and what's even sadder than our kids being influenced in this way is the grown adults who see these characters as lifestyle guides rather than satire).

Agree that the way women are protrayed in these things is awful, but I think if you're looking to films for role models, you're doing it wrong.

Tony EH

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I think Danny Boyle got there first with 28 days later....
Slow walking zombies are the least scary thing ever, after kittens

There's no zombies in '28 Days Later'. They're rage infected living people driven insane by the effects. They don't eat their victims and they die from lack of food.

Even Boyle said '28 Days Later' wasn't a zombie film.

Tony EH

Sleepy wrote: »

The biggest one for me is the portrayal of women in movies, particularly rom-coms:

Pious, self-absorbed, whiney, shrew-like, cunts that behave with zero thought as to the consequences of their actions

Unfortunately, I've met quite a lot of girls who fit that bill.

Sleepy

Quorum wrote: »

Agree that the way women are protrayed in these things is awful, but I think if you're looking to films for role models, you're doing it wrong.

I agree, however, given our media culture, where else can we convince teenage girls to look for them?

Tony EH wrote: »

Unfortunately, I've met quite a lot of girls who fit that bill.

Question: how many of them are over the age of 30?

--Kaiser--

Stimpyone wrote: »

I hate to be pedantic but they weren’t zombies in 28 days later. They were infected with a virus.

Tony EH wrote: »

There's no zombies in '28 Days Later'. They're rage infected living people driven insane by the effects. They don't eat their victims and they die from lack of food.

Even Boyle said '28 Days Later' wasn't a zombie film.

I'll admit that one but I'll stand by my point that slow moving zombies are simply not scary or unsettling in any way

beerbaron

JohnMarston wrote: »

Thats true, the telltale sign was that they ran or sprinted. Dead people are subject to rigormortis.

But Zombies are undead ?

Quorum

Sleepy wrote: »

I agree, however, given our media culture, where else can we convince teenage girls to look for them?

I think you're not giving teenage girls enough credit!

Mickeroo

Quorum wrote: »

Agree that the way women are protrayed in these things is awful, but I think if you're looking to films for role models, you're doing it wrong.

People have used fictional characters as role models for thousands of years.

krudler

Sleepy wrote: »

The biggest one for me is the portrayal of women in movies, particularly rom-coms:

Pious, self-absorbed, whiney, shrew-like, cunts that behave with zero thought as to the consequences of their actions (nevermind actually having any rationale for those actions in the first place) and yet seem to live utterly charmed lives where, despite their own ability to earn enough to live in a luxury apartment in Manhattan, walk everywhere in Jimmy Choos and wear designer clothing (rather than stuff from Penneys or it's US equivalent) from baking cupcakes / writing drivel / "being fabulous" etc. they still end up being fawned upon by a handsome and charming billionaire. :rolleyes:

Just think of any character played by Katherine Heigl, Sarah Jessica Parker or Kate Hudson.

These are not good role-models for our daughters and movies are woefully short on smart, educated and self-aware women. Give them River Song, Ellen Ripley or Clarice Starling to aspire to be like, not some snivelling bitch to help foster a sense of entitlement.

(and what's even sadder than our kids being influenced in this way is the grown adults who see these characters as lifestyle guides rather than satire).

No matter how successful, wealthy and independent you are, your happiness hinges on who will date you.

krudler

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I'll admit that one but I'll stand by my point that slow moving zombies are simply not scary or unsettling in any way

when the zombies do get here I hope they're the shuffling type, not the sprinters, I dont have enough fitness for that sh1t. I want to enjoy casually strolling around with power tools taking them out in dozens.

--Kaiser--

krudler wrote: »

when the zombies do get here I hope they're the shuffling type, not the sprinters, I dont have enough fitness for that sh1t. I want to enjoy casually strolling around with power tools taking them out in dozens.

That's fair enough, I'd like the challenge of the fast ones

old hippy

I love zombies but they're basically just crap, brainless vampires

Sleepy

Quorum wrote: »

I think you're not giving teenage girls enough credit!

I'll admit that, being the father of a young girl, it's something of a concern of mine. There's a serious dearth of female role-models for our children.

Look in the papers, magazines or at the TV and the women you see are famous for stripping off for lads mags, "modeling" a meteor placard on Grafton Street in hotpants, being moronically stupid on "reality" TV, dating/marrying a famous man or a combination of all four. "Being famous" is bizarely a lucrative career these days and it's not something I want my daughter to aspire to as from the state of the mental-health of the women in question, it appears to be a very unfulfilled life.

Katie Taylor is one of the few strong female characters I can think of in our press at the moment. If only she'd stop the god bothering she might make a good role model for Irish girls!

donalg1

I absolutely detest movies that leave the ending up in the air, or leave it so that I have to guess what happens, if I sit through a film I want the end to be the end not one that leaves me thinking well does it mean that such and such is dead or are they alive or what the hell.

old hippy

donalg1 wrote: »

I absolutely detest movies that leave the ending up in the air, or leave it so that I have to guess what happens, if I sit through a film I want the end to be the end not one that leaves me thinking well does it mean that such and such is dead or are they alive or what the hell.

The Italian Job, Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid?

donalg1

old hippy wrote: »

The Italian Job, Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid?

Well there is no way Butch and Sundance made it out alive those two are brown bread for sure.

Quorum

Mickeroo wrote: »

People have used fictional characters as role models for thousands of years.

Have they? That's kind of a vague statement. I guess there's always been easily-led people.

Sleepy wrote: »

I'll admit that, being the father of a young girl, it's something of a concern of mine. There's a serious dearth of female role-models for our children.

Why do celebrities and TV characters need to be role models? Some teenage girls might look to them as such but as someone who has been a teenage girl, I can assure you that many don't.

There have always been flibbertigibbets like you mention knocking around.

Sleepy

Quorum wrote: »

Why do celebrities and TV characters need to be role models? Some teenage girls might look to them as such but as someone who has been a teenage girl, I can assure you that many don't.

There have always been flibbertigibbets like you mention knocking around.

Being famous doesn't mean one has to be a role model. I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like to see more suitable female role models in the public spotlight.

If a young girl switches on her TV or reads a magazine it's very, very unlikely that there'll be a woman presented to her who might make for a good role model.

There's something wrong with a society like this imo.

maximoose

donalg1 wrote: »

I absolutely detest movies that leave the ending up in the air, or leave it so that I have to guess what happens, if I sit through a film I want the end to be the end not one that leaves me thinking well does it mean that such and such is dead or are they alive or what the hell.

Me too, I was so annoyed at the end of the Dark Knight Rises!


*runs*

Mickeroo

Quorum wrote: »

Have they? That's kind of a vague statement. I guess there's always been easily-led people.



Why do celebrities and TV characters need to be role models? Some teenage girls might look to them as such but as someone who has been a teenage girl, I can assure you that many don't.

There have always been flibbertigibbets like you mention knocking around.

Well before film you had books, before that there's the countless myths and legends different cultures had. I'm not saying its necessarily a good thing or anything but in many ways the whole point of fiction (good fiction anyway) is to learn something from it or relate to the characters therein. Most stories have some supposed moral message at their centre, its pretty much the whole point of a good story that you will take something from it.

The way men and women are portrayed in movies or any other fictional media is reflective of societies expectations of gender as a whole at that period in time. In movies today more often than not men are tough, emotionless, powerful homicidal maniacs (and this is going all the way back to greek mythology and possibly beyond to some extent) or in films aimed at women they're charming multi millionaires that only need a good woman to come along and change them etc. I don't think it's a good thing in these cases just to be clear.

Not everyone is influenced by these representations to the same degree (yourself included no doubt) but a lot of people are (kids mainly) and all they do is re-inforce these lousy gender stereotypes. I think women really get the short end of the stick in this regard, there's a severe lack of strong female characters in modern cinema it has to be said. They're either damsels in distress in action movies or they're the vacuous bints we see in rom-coms.

MiseryMary

JohnMarston wrote: »

Singers and retired professional athletes thinking they can act

Singers with **** Bad acting Jennifer Lopaz, hate those movies!

Quorum

Sleepy wrote: »

If a young girl switches on her TV or reads a magazine it's very, very unlikely that there'll be a woman presented to her who might make for a good role model.

So? Put it this way, if I was a celebrity, I would act like I always do, whether that put me in the good or bad role model category. Being a role model wouldn't be a worry of mine.

Mickeroo

Quorum wrote: »

So? Put it this way, if I was a celebrity, I would act like I always do, whether that put me in the good or bad role model category. Being a role model wouldn't be a worry of mine.

I could be wrong but I think thats pretty much the problem with a lot of celebrities that Sleepy is trying to point out, its kind of a lack of responsibility on their part.

Sleepy

So maybe we as a society should strive to put better women (or female characters) on TV, in movies etc. You know, women with personalities rather than vacuous bints?

krudler

maximoose wrote: »

Me too, I was so annoyed at the end of the Dark Knight Rises!


*runs*

Why? Its not ambiguous in the least

maximoose

Sleepy wrote: »

So maybe we as a society should strive to put better women (or female characters) on TV, in movies etc. You know, women with personalities rather than vacuous bints?

TBH, I think parents should take responsibility for how their children turn out and not any "celebrities". Kinda irks me how much we hear about actors, musicians, sports personalities etc "setting a bad example for the kids" etc - why should we expect people to change the way they want to live their lives for the sake of someone else's children?

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

Why? Its not ambiguous in the least

Haha, I almost bit too, you might want to highlight their post

krudler

Mickeroo wrote: »

Haha, I almost bit too, you might want to highlight their post

Dammit! This is where phone posting doesnt work :pac:

Mickeroo

maximoose wrote: »

TBH, I think parents should take responsibility for how their children turn out and not any "celebrities". Kinda irks me how much we hear about actors, musicians, sports personalities etc "setting a bad example for the kids" etc - why should we expect people to change the way they want to live their lives for the sake of someone else's children?

The only thing a parent could do is ban their kid using from all forms of media if they don't want their kids to idolise celebrities to some extent.

bassey

The bit in Enemy of the State when the bad guys are looking at the CCTV of Will Smith in the shop with the cd or cartridge or whatever it is... and they're able to not only completely de-pixilate the picture, but they can rotate the image to see quite clearly what's in the bag. Biggest load of me ballix ever

MJ23

The way some comedies are not a bit funny.

Sleepy

Mickeroo wrote: »

I could be wrong but I think thats pretty much the problem with a lot of celebrities that Sleepy is trying to point out, its kind of a lack of responsibility on their part.

I'm more thinking of society / the media's responsibility to promote *some* good role models. I've no problem with morons being portrayed as morons but when morons are the only people presented, children will believe that's normal and to be emulated.

maximoose wrote: »

TBH, I think parents should take responsibility for how their children turn out and not any "celebrities". Kinda irks me how much we hear about actors, musicians, sports personalities etc "setting a bad example for the kids" etc - why should we expect people to change the way they want to live their lives for the sake of someone else's children?

I think Mickeroo answered this quite well but tbh, it's not that I expect better behaviour from the likes of Jordan, Kerry Katona, the various WAGS and Desperate Slappers of [insert locale]. It's not their fault they're idiots, their parents failings are more likely to be the root cause tbh but I believe the media to take some responsibility and stop presenting these imbeciles as being laudable, normal or worthy of coverage.

Quorum

Mickeroo wrote: »

I could be wrong but I think thats pretty much the problem with a lot of celebrities that Sleepy is trying to point out, its kind of a lack of responsibility on their part.

Why should they bear responsibility for that? I am genuinely perplexed.

maximoose wrote: »

TBH, I think parents should take responsibility for how their children turn out and not any "celebrities". Kinda irks me how much we hear about actors, musicians, sports personalities etc "setting a bad example for the kids" etc - why should we expect people to change the way they want to live their lives for the sake of someone else's children?

This.

Quorum

Mickeroo wrote: »

The only thing a parent could do is ban their kid using from all forms of media if they don't want their kids to idolise celebrities to some extent.

Right, but it's not the responsibility of anyone in the public eye to think of the children!

Sleepy

I'd argue that it is the responsibility of anyone who owns a media platform to think of their younger viewers.

ash is still ten years old in the anime over 800 episodes and 15 movies hell still ten even tho in movie 3 he celebrated there first anniversary together

that and pikachu on level 9000 still loses to noobs lol

Jarren

Watching actors who can't act (replying to original post )

Hint - Kristen Stewart performance in Snow White and the Huntsman.

Mickeroo

Quorum wrote: »

Why should they bear responsibility for that? I am genuinely perplexed.

Quorum wrote: »

Right, but it's not the responsibility of anyone in the public eye to think of the children!

*shrug* celebrities are role models by definition. It's up to them what kind of role model they want to be of course.

bassey

AND ANOTHER THING..

Not only are they making a film of On The Road, however the fluck that's gonna work... but to cast that absolute gobshìte Kirsten Stewart in it, that idiot has less acting range than Roger Moore!

Quorum

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd argue that it is the responsibility of anyone who owns a media platform to think of their younger viewers.

And I'd argue that parents should stop looking to strangers to blame for the behaviour of their offspring. There is nothing anyone can do about the behaviour of people in the public eye. So look to things you can actually change.

Mickeroo wrote: »

*shrug* celebrities are role models by definition. It's up to them what kind of role model they want to be of course.

Or completely reject the idea of being a role model. I don't see how they are role models "by definition". Being a celebrity just means they are well-known, and maybe celebrated in a certain area.

gnfnrhead

Deleted User wrote: »

ash is still ten years old in the anime over 800 episodes and 15 movies hell still ten even tho in movie 3 he celebrated there first anniversary together

that and pikachu on level 9000 still loses to noobs lol

To be fair, it wouldnt have the same effect if he was now 25 or whatever :pac:

Mine is the opposite for Pikachu in that he hardly ever lost.

Mickeroo

Quorum wrote: »

Or completely reject the idea of being a role model. I don't see how they are role models "by definition". Being a celebrity just means they are well-known, and maybe celebrated in a certain area.

Rejecting the idea of being a role model doesn't mean someone won't look on them as a role model. Indeed it might only enhance their image as someone to emulate. It's not really something they can have control over either way by virtue of being famous. They're role models by definition because if they're well known the chances are they've done something to become well known in their field/profession which inspires people with an interest in that profession to emulate them. Obviously the likes of so called reality tv stars and such muddy the waters a bit in that respect.

No-one on here trying to blame celebrities for the behaviour of their kids as far as I can see, certainly not me(not that I have kids), thats just a scapegoat and not something I would agree with. However I do think its equally silly to deny that popular media has some influence over people to varying degrees.

Reindeer

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Except Dominic West's attempt at an American accent

I thought I was the only one it grated on. Some foreign actors get it mostly right, but that particular one sounds a bit rough. I watch too much Fringe, and the British and Aussies occasionally say an odd word here or there, but generally do OK.

The worst was Blackhawk Down - an absolute mess at times(still, I enjoyed it well). But Spud(Bremner) did amazingly well for how thick his accent usually is. He still said a few things that made me wonder if his underwear was a size too small. Isaacs and McGregor did the most poorly with their attempts. Waldau did an amazing job for having been born in Denmark, even if his time on screen was limited(Last mag!). The worst was actually Strong, an American from Los Angeles, playing Shughart, a Nebraskan, the Delta Force sniper opposite the Dane. He came across as a Bostonian. WTH? Yeah, if ya wanna see a literal boatload of foreign actors trying on an american accent for 2 hours, Blackhawk is your show.

Someone earlier mentioned crickets in forest scenes or night scenes. In most places in the states, especially this time of year when you would be outside, there are crickets and katydids everywhere. It was almost deafening last week during my 6 day orchard camp/contract(without a shower or access to a river, mind you) over near White Salmon, Washington.

Quorum

Mickeroo wrote: »

Rejecting the idea of being a role model doesn't mean someone won't look on them as a role model. Indeed it might only enhance their image as someone to emulate. It's not really something they can have control over either way by virtue of being famous. They're role models by definition because if they're well known the chances are they've done something to become well known in their field/profession which inspires people with an interest in that profession to emulate them. Obviously the likes of so called reality tv stars and such muddy the waters a bit in that respect.

No-one on here trying to blame celebrities for the behaviour of their kids as far as I can see, certainly not me(not that I have kids), thats just a scapegoat and not something I would agree with. However I do think its equally silly to deny that popular media has some influence over people to varying degrees.

It has some, but if you look up to someone like Jordan, there's quite frankly no hope for you.

As just as celebs can't help if some people see them as a role model, parents can't help if the celebs their children look up to don't behave like role models.

I also disagree that being in the public doe excelling at something makes one a role model, these people are still human.