Does anyone else feel insulted?

carpocrates

I've just seen the ad on TV for Shall We dance starring (and I use the term loosely) Richard 'fond of Hamsters' Gere and Jennifer Lopez. I just wanted to ask does anyone else feel personally insulted at being served up another rancid excuse for a cinematic vegetation experience?
I mean, isn't it a kind of theft to make a deplorably bad film and then release it, knowing full well it sucks and everyone witll loathe it? Doesn't that then provoke cries of criminal prosecution???
It really is the equivalent of the director appearing on screen after the credits and screaming throat tearing, unrepeatable abuse at the audience for minutes on end before dropping his overpriced khakis and taking a diahorrea dump on the camera and smearing the excrement all over the lens, finally using his finger to spell out the words 'this is what I think of you.'

It really sickens me that the perpetrators of these criminal films be allowed live.

GeorgeBailey

carpocrates wrote:

I've just seen the ad on TV for Shall We dance starring (and I use the term loosely) Richard 'fond of Hamsters' Gere and Jennifer Lopez. I just wanted to ask does anyone else feel personally insulted at being served up another rancid excuse for a cinematic vegetation experience?
I mean, isn't it a kind of theft to make a deplorably bad film and then release it, knowing full well it sucks and everyone witll loathe it? Doesn't that then provoke cries of criminal prosecution???
It really is the equivalent of the director appearing on screen after the credits and screaming throat tearing, unrepeatable abuse at the audience for minutes on end before dropping his overpriced khakis and taking a diahorrea dump on the camera and smearing the excrement all over the lens, finally using his finger to spell out the words 'this is what I think of you.'

It really sickens me that the perpetrators of these criminal films be allowed live.

Yes but is it a good film?

Thordon

A bit harsh , just dont watch it, I wont be.

carpocrates

George, how in the name of all that's good, could a film about Jennifer Lopez teaching Ricahrd Gere to Tango ever be considered a good film?

Thordon, it's not just a case of not watching it. Films like this are inflicted on us all the time, ruining our digestive systems by rising all our bile to intolerable levels and often actually inducing vomit. The more of this sewage there is out there the less space is left for good stuff...

Ardent

I think I've seen the advertisements around town for this, don't know much about it but it doesn't strike as any good. I'm sure though there'll plenty of fools spending their hard earned cash to go see it.

herobear

umm its a chick flick :rolleyes:

Thorbar

I'm only talking for myself here but if it wasn't for chick flicks like this it would be a lot harder to get the girlfriend to go see the likes of Terminator 3. I can happily go to sleep for 2 hours in front of something like this if it will give me a moral high horse with which I can drag my girlfriend to the latest horror or action movie.

simu

A large percentage of potential cinema goers are morons. Morons like Richard Gere and J-Lo and will pay to see them on the screen. Film production companies are aware of this and like to make profits. That's hardly news.

simu

Thorbar wrote:

I'm only talking for myself here but if it wasn't for chick flicks like this it would be a lot harder to get the girlfriend to go see the likes of Terminator 3. I can happily go to sleep for 2 hours in front of something like this if it will give me a moral high horse with which I can drag my girlfriend to the latest horror or action movie.

Why don't you both just go alone to the films you like if you don't share tastes?

You're just giving more money to these people.

Morrigan

herobear wrote:

umm its a chick flick :rolleyes:

It's actually a remake of a Japanese film of the same name (actually phonetically the same anyway- "Sharu uii Dansu?"). I saw the original a few years ago, and it was actually quite charming. I suppose it could be described as a 'chick flick' (deplorable term), although it is told from the lead male's point of view, and has some dark moments - it is about a man, whose life has become work/commute/sleep, who is trying to cheat on his wife...
I have little doubt that its current Hollywoodised incarnation will have all meaning and most charm clumsily scourged in favour of plugging big names who have little or no onscreen chemistry...

or something to that effect.

Thorbar

simu wrote:

Why don't you both just go alone to the films you like if you don't share tastes?

You're just giving more money to these people.

Relationships are all about compromise, we generally take turns picking which movie we go to and I must say I've seen and enjoyed a few movies that I would have ignored otherwise.

Pigman II

My god, people are making films that don't suit my own personal taste now?

herobear

Morrigan wrote:

It's actually a remake of a Japanese film of the same name (actually phonetically the same anyway- "Sharu uii Dansu?"). I saw the original a few years ago, and it was actually quite charming. I suppose it could be described as a 'chick flick' (deplorable term), although it is told from the lead male's point of view, and has some dark moments - it is about a man, whose life has become work/commute/sleep, who is trying to cheat on his wife...
I have little doubt that its current Hollywoodised incarnation will have all meaning and most charm clumsily scourged in favour of plugging big names who have little or no onscreen chemistry...

or something to that effect.

yes i heard about that i did, seems mildly interesting.
i dont really get why 'chick flick' is regarded as deplorable though
i mean it doesnt mean its necessarily bad, its just primarily suited to women.
granted theres no real male equivalent of the term but still, theres plenty of male-orientated films i detest, and chick flicks i like(serendipity especially i adore)

Caesar_Bojangle

It was obviously made for a specific market, not everyone is into classics like Under Siege 1 & 2.

Frith

carpocrates wrote:

I've just seen the ad on TV for Shall We dance starring (and I use the term loosely) Richard 'fond of Hamsters' Gere and Jennifer Lopez
what's your problem.... if you don't like a film so what...each to her/his own... get a review first and if you don't like the sounds of it.. don't go see ti

you don't like reading reviews (i don't) i love the surprise... great ..sometimes great sometimes ok and sometimes crap.. but stop complaining .. everyone is entitled to their artistic expression.
i would never go see anything with J lo in it cos i'm female and not driven by my lower regions:-) THAT WAS A JOKE.. richard gere has done some films i admire but i would still expect that he could dissopint me .. where as johnny depp ( as HE IS GORGEOUS) has never. but going to the cinema should still always be a RISK.

simu

herobear wrote:

yes i heard about that i did, seems mildly interesting.
i dont really get why 'chick flick' is regarded as deplorable though
i mean it doesnt mean its necessarily bad, its just primarily suited to women.
granted theres no real male equivalent of the term but still, theres plenty of male-orientated films i detest, and chick flicks i like(serendipity especially i adore)

"Chick-flick" refers to formulaic, romantic, tear-jerker type films rather than any film with more women than men in it.

BaZmO*

I sympathise with the point that the OP is making. I have left the cinema or finished watching a rental at home feeling totally ripped off but as Pigman II said (in a slightly sarcastic way) it's a personal taste thing.
I'm sure there are a lot of people that after having watched the film will feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Their choice!
It happens in music and others arts all the time, so it's not strictly limited to the world of celluloid.

B.

BolBill

J Lo Movie = Sh*te movie

Ajos

You have much anger. Much inappropriate anger. You should probably chill out for a couple of hours in front of a nice, relaxing film with no explosions. The Richard Gere flick "Shall We Dance" looks good, maybe that would help.

Frith

Ajos wrote:

You have much anger. Much inappropriate anger. You should probably chill out for a couple of hours in front of a nice, relaxing film with no explosions. The Richard Gere flick "Shall We Dance" looks good, maybe that would help.

maybe i do... but someone gripping about a film is a bit annoying... it was not a review of same...he just gave out... life is a bit short to get so hung up... some people love this stuff.. good for them.. some don't ..who cares.. i think we should be talking about the stuff that gets us going no the stuff that gets other people who are not even here going...
does that make any sense????

Ajos

Well, that's what I get for not quoting. I was actually referring to the original poster, not you. You have some anger, but it seems to be under control. I think I'd trust you with Van Helsing, maybe even Die Hard II.

Guy:Incognito

BolBill wrote:

J Lo Movie = Sh*te movie

Your opinion = something you think*










* disclaimer, your opinion may not be the same as others, hence its your opinion.

Karl Hungus

Stekelly wrote:

Your opinion = something you think*

Thank you so much for pointing out that little facet of information, I would never have contemplated that notion before. You're a stern and shining example that people who would point out that someone's opinion is infact only speaking for themselves, aren't just resorting to "That's what you think" mode when they've a lack of anything usefull to say, or have a lack of any opinion of their own. Thank you.

Now that we've established that when I post something, I'm speaking from my perspective only, I'd also like to say that J-lo = **** movie.

Reef

What a stupid, stupid thread. You don't like the idea of the movie? Oh deary me. I'm sure alot of people wouldn't like some of the films you watch.

Believe it or not some of the films you loved will be a film somebody else detested.

I doubt it would be a good film but obviously some people are going to like it. You don't like it, don't see it & don't waste your time talking about it.

Morrigan

Reef wrote:

What a stupid, stupid thread. You don't like the idea of the movie? Oh deary me. I'm sure alot of people wouldn't like some of the films you watch.

Believe it or not some of the films you loved will be a film somebody else detested.

I doubt it would be a good film but obviously some people are going to like it. You don't like it, don't see it & don't waste your time talking about it.

The thread was started by someone frustrated by the prospect of being force fed another glob of saccharine hollywood dross, and was looking for empathy.
I am sure carpocrates understands the concept of different people having varying tastes. It's pretty pointless and prosaic (or 'stupid, stupid', if you prefer) to point this fact out. What would be more interesting is to debate whether this film a purely cynical exercise by people whose primary aim is to make money out of a public for which they hold nothing but supercilious contempt.

Reef

Apologies, next time I'll bring my thesaurus (cuz that's really the point).

Firstly, how was he force fed it?? Secondly, I feel that way about James Bond, Star Trek/Wars Films. But it is a matter of TASTE. I don't go around saying that I feel 'insulted' that they brought out another James Bond film (or whatever). If it's not your type of movie then why feel insulted? The ads are directed at a different type of person. It's not as if it comes across in the adverts as being a film that's going to blow you away.

The argument is pointless, as I've already mentioned, people have different tastes. Sorry to point that out to you again, but that IS what it comes down to.

"purely cynical exercise by people whose primary aim is to make money out of a public for which they hold nothing but supercilious contempt."

-Personally, I think that's reading a little too much into it. If you're going to be thinking about it like that then you could apply that theory to alot of different films.

pickarooney

Why is it that when someone makes a film like Gigli they get to work for money again?

Karl Hungus

You know what, I do feel insulted. And for the record, it's absolutely nothing to do with taste, it's because of Hollywood's ridiculous tendancy to remake every single asian movie in existance. Now it's all well and fine to point out that it's something that has been done for ages now, but before this it was basically just a handfull of Kurosawa's movies, now it seems like there's some kind of contract out there that in the depths of Hollywood that every single time an Asian film is made, America is contractually oblidged to remake it. It's an absolute joke!

How come no one gives out about Bollywood Studios remakingevery single American film?
Is'nt basically the same as American studios remaking Asian films?

Karl Hungus

Deleted User wrote:

How come no one gives out about Bollywood Studios remakingevery single American film?
Is'nt basically the same as American studios remaking Asian films?

Does that make it any less wrong?

Gone West

while I absolutely despise both jennifer (Jlo) Lopez and Richard Gere, I still must point out the obvious - that you dont have to watch the film if you dont want to.

ixoy

Karl Hungus wrote:

now it seems like there's some kind of contract out there that in the depths of Hollywood that every single time an Asian film is made, America is contractually oblidged to remake it. It's an absolute joke!

Umm let's not get ahead of ourselves. It'd be interesting to see a stat of the actual % of Asian movies that America remakes. Those that it has gone for are nearly all ones I've heard of, or seen - e.g. Ringu, Dark Water, Infernal Affairs (whywhywhywhywhy), Oldboy (bastards), A Tale of Two Sisters, etc. They're the ones that make it out to the theatres here but I'm sure there's plenty that get over looked. And I dare them to try to tackle certain movies like 'Save the Green Planet!'*

* Please do not accept my dare Hollywood

Morrigan

Reef wrote:

Apologies, next time I'll bring my thesaurus (cuz that's really the point).

Well, you should.
*Opens brick-thick thesaurus* If you are going to be argumentative and petulant, you might as well make it sound interesting and eloquent...

Reef wrote:

Firstly, how was he force fed it??

Yes, that was an exaggeration. But it seemed to sum up how they felt about being caught by the advertisement for this film...

Reef wrote:

Secondly, I feel that way about James Bond, Star Trek/Wars Films. But it is a matter of TASTE. I don't go around saying that I feel 'insulted' that they brought out another James Bond film (or whatever). If it's not your type of movie then why feel insulted? The ads are directed at a different type of person. It's not as if it comes across in the adverts as being a film that's going to blow you away.

The argument is pointless, as I've already mentioned, people have different tastes. Sorry to point that out to you again, but that IS what it comes down to.

I understand there is no point in arguing in the vein of "i don't like such-and-such, it is crap, i wish it didn't exist" when it is a matter of taste. In fact I heartily agree that there is no point, so i took this part of Carpocrates post

carpocrates wrote:

I mean, isn't it a kind of theft to make a deplorably bad film and then release it, knowing full well it sucks and everyone witll loathe it? Doesn't that then provoke cries of criminal prosecution???

and ran with that, as quoted by yourself.

Reef wrote:

"purely cynical exercise by people whose primary aim is to make money out of a public for which they hold nothing but supercilious contempt."

-Personally, I think that's reading a little too much into it. If you're going to be thinking about it like that then you could apply that theory to alot of different films.

Call me a cynic (go ahead, please do), but I think it's naive not to believe that many Hollywood producers are out to make money, and actually look down on the public from whom they make their living. And I do think about it like that and I do apply that theory to A LOT of different films. It's not fair to single out this film in particualr. Let's just say it serves as a GOOD EXAMPLE.

Reef

Morrigan wrote:

Well, you should.
*Opens brick-thick thesaurus* If you are going to be argumentative and petulant, you might as well make it sound interesting and eloquent...

To be honest I was hungover when I posted the first reply, hence I said what came into my head and couldn't have been bothered to make it sound interesting or 'eloquent'.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you said, you are a cynic, and we have different opinions!! Lets just leave it at that!

Ajos

Films are made to make money. They target different audiences. Some films will be anathema to some people. What's odd to me is when people take it personally. And as to Gigli - nobody sets out to make a bad movie, sometimes it just happens. I believe it was Francois Truffaut who said "It's as much trouble to make a bad film as a good one" (probably in French).

Why does anybody care so much? The studios don't have an obligation to you. If they make bad films that nobody wants to see they'll fail all on their own, without you having to get even slightly upset about it. And what's wrong with remakes? The idea that they're in some way immoral is ridiculous.

It's a business. Don't take it so seriously.

seamus

Ajos wrote:

Why does anybody care so much? The studios don't have an obligation to you. If they make bad films that nobody wants to see they'll fail all on their own, without you having to get even slightly upset about it. And what's wrong with remakes? The idea that they're in some way immoral is ridiculous.

I think the films that annoy people are the ones that don't have any merit - rather they're specifically aimed at a market group for the sake of making money, not artistic expression. In recent times there have been many films full of tired cliches, and the same old routines, mostly aimed at the 15-35 female market, this "Shall we dance" one being one of the most blatant. There will *always* be films aimed at particular markets - the sci-fi market, the children's market, etc, but most of the time, an attempt is made at originality or a well-written story.

There are probably two groups who get so annoyed about this:
1. Hardcore cinema-goers who enjoy their movies. This kind of thing is the movie equivalent of spamming a message board - you don't have to look at it, but it's still there trying to grab your attention.
2. Men. By Jesus we hate this crap. Luckily some of us, like me, just say "No ****ing Way" and our girlfriends understand, but many poor saps have to accompany their other halfs to this boring tripe and then pretend they enjoyed it to get some action.

Morrigan

seamus wrote:

There are probably two groups who get so annoyed about this:
1. Hardcore cinema-goers who enjoy their movies. This kind of thing is the movie equivalent of spamming a message board - you don't have to look at it, but it's still there trying to grab your attention.
2. Men. By Jesus we hate this crap. Luckily some of us, like me, just say "No ****ing Way" and our girlfriends understand, but many poor saps have to accompany their other halfs to this boring tripe and then pretend they enjoyed it to get some action.

Group number 3 - women who also hate this crap, but are assumed by those contemptuous Hollywood producers, and most men, to love it. Therefore the existence of another vacuous piece of popular culture*, polluting our already detritus-ridden culture, is attributed to/blamed on women - who are assumed to be too shallow and/or intellectually stunted to appreciate non-crap.

I don't take this personally at all.

*see also "Chick-lit"(celia ahern et al), "Chick-TV"(newlyweds etc.)

Reef

seamus wrote:

2. Men. By Jesus we hate this crap. Luckily some of us, like me, just say "No ****ing Way" and our girlfriends understand, but many poor saps have to accompany their other halfs to this boring tripe and then pretend they enjoyed it to get some action.

See this is perhaps one of the few good reasons they make films like "Shall we Dance"...maybe it'll help the 'saps' to realise they need a new girlfriend.

I really don't understand women who force their boyfriends to watch films they don't want to see. I don't see why they don't go and watch it with their own girlfriends.

Ajos...spot on!

Karl Hungus

seamus wrote:

I think the films that annoy people are the ones that don't have any merit - rather they're specifically aimed at a market group for the sake of making money, not artistic expression. In recent times there have been many films full of tired cliches, and the same old routines, mostly aimed at the 15-35 female market, this "Shall we dance" one being one of the most blatant. There will *always* be films aimed at particular markets - the sci-fi market, the children's market, etc, but most of the time, an attempt is made at originality or a well-written story.

There are probably two groups who get so annoyed about this:
1. Hardcore cinema-goers who enjoy their movies. This kind of thing is the movie equivalent of spamming a message board - you don't have to look at it, but it's still there trying to grab your attention.
2. Men. By Jesus we hate this crap. Luckily some of us, like me, just say "No ****ing Way" and our girlfriends understand, but many poor saps have to accompany their other halfs to this boring tripe and then pretend they enjoyed it to get some action.

I think you've hit the nail on the head right there, Seamus. I honestly couldn't have said it better myself.

fizzynicenice

i'm so sick of tact. feck the political correctness, lets go bitch-slap everybody who pisses us off at all for any reason, yeah!!!
bad movie makers
rude shop assistants
travellers
know-it-alls
rich people
women/men who wont sleep with us
-and in the words of MC Hawking
"f*ck the creationists"