What irks you the most with today's movies ( 2000 - present )???

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Raunchy comedies shot with 2.35:1 ratio when there is nothing much going on on the screen. Waste of space.

Like 'She's Out of My League'. What justifies the ratio, when there's nothing to the cinematography.

And then a huge action movie like The Avengers being shot in 1:85.1, despite half-a-dozen heroes to keep track of...

[Oateyboat]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

And then a huge action movie like The Avengers being shot in 1:85.1, despite half-a-dozen heroes to keep track of...

At least it fills the entire screen and looks beautiful when watching it at home though.

[jupiter123]

Too much CGI

[JLaw1719]

Originally Posted by octagon

This is another area where perceptions can really get skewed.

The Thing (1982) was a remake of The Thing From Another World (1951).

In that case, remaking a 31 year old movie seems okay because the 1951 film was part of 'the past'. It was from a previous generation.

Remaking thirty year old movies from the 80s seems somehow different because those movies seem more real to us. We remember them differently and don't just lump them all into some amorphous 'back then'.

But is there any real difference?

There is a difference, especially considering The Thing from '82. In comparison to the '51 version, there was actually a point to making the movie, other than mindlessly making money, which we all know it didn't. Carpenter adores the original and it was a heavily influential film on him directing. He approached the remake with a level of care that is virtually non-existent these days. It was literally a passion project and to help make it different from Hawkes' version, he followed the novella far more closely. The Thing from Another World barely resembles Who Goes There...and that's fine of course. It's own spin was put on it. Just as Carpenter did.

Fast forward to the current era, almost none of these remakes/reboots/etc are done by anyone who gave a crap about the prior version of the material. The projects are given to people who've directed only music videos and people who only want the recognition of having their name attached to a big movie title. They have no vision for what they want to do different with the material. There are exceptions, but I'm speaking about the majority.

It's always been about making money. Look at the Val Lewton films from the 40's. Prior to actually making the movie, it doesn't get much more formulaic than that....a strict set budget of $150,000 or less no matter what, the title of the movie before a script is even written, and a run time of 75 minutes I believe. All giant hurdles set up by a studio only concerned about making a buck. But the care went into making the films makes them memorable and important to the horror genre.

But it's just different today. It's such a fine tuned formula at this point. Making these movies is mostly a souless and empty process. There is little effort to make these films even decent. All they care about is that they have the name recognition, the installed fan base, and going about it the cheapest way possible.

I've long ago quit being upset about the idea of a remake in general. It's the process of how they're made these days which bothers me. And it seems this current era of remakes seems a lot different, compared to remakes in the past. Plus the fact that the fact they're simply at an all time high.

[Dubstar]

the overuse CGI blood in horror movies - the 1980's had the best splatter movies in terms of grue

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Thirty years is thirty years. A teenager today probably considers films from the early 80's as "primitive" and "quaint" as 80's audiences thought about films from the 50's, and 50's audiences though about films from the 20's. That's why we see so many remakes of films and TV shows from our generation...today's kids wouldn't watch them. It's a vicious cycle that will never stop.

I generally agree with your sentiment - however, you can't honestly say the number of remakes has stayed consistent in the past 60 years. It's grown exponentially in the past decade or so. So yes, the trend towards remaking movies is not new, it's the frequency with which it's used as a crutch to make a studios bottom line that is new and annoying.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Raunchy comedies shot with 2.35:1 ratio when there is nothing much going on on the screen. Waste of space.

Like 'She's Out of My League'. What justifies the ratio, when there's nothing to the cinematography.

Yup. Can't stand seeing the latest Rom-Com piece of crap shot in that ratio - because it's so freakin special that 1.85:1 won't do.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by i007spectre

I kind of miss practical effects. Everything is CGI nowadays.

You have to think that Stan Winston would have been nothing but a broke, alcoholic living on skid row had he been born today.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

And then a huge action movie like The Avengers being shot in 1:85.1, despite half-a-dozen heroes to keep track of...

Maybe that was done to emphasize the height of the buildings, etc, in NYC? Joss shot 2.40 for Serenity so it's not like he hasn't used a wider aspect ratio before.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

the overuse CGI blood in horror movies - the 1980's had the best splatter movies in terms of grue

Yep. I don't like those either, they make the movie look cheap.

Harry Brown was an excellent movie but I didn't care for the CG blood squibs.

[Mr. Lost]

I bet this has been said before, but the BWWWWAAAAMMMMMMM soundtrack. Might as well add the wilhelm scream after it to deafen the audience.

[Autumn Shroud]

Some points have already been mentioned several times, like the PG13 rating and the never ending stream of remakes. What's been bothering me the past few years, are blatantly obvious coincidences and conveniences, and generally poor writing, making supposedly smart characters come across as if they have no sense whatsoever. This leaves me, as a movie goer, wondering what a director is trying to make a person believe. It's almost insulting, how much stupidity we've had thrown at us in the past 10, 5 years especially.

[hsox05]

I didn't read through the whole thread, but certainly the overabundance of Super Hero movies. I feel like 75% of the "blockbuster" movies that have come out in recent memory have been centered around superheroes. It's time for something new...

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by hsox05

I didn't read through the whole thread, but certainly the overabundance of Super Hero movies. I feel like 75% of the "blockbuster" movies that have come out in recent memory have been centered around superheroes. It's time for something new...

Yes - its getting old but as long as moviegoers keep throwing cash at them then they'll keep doing it. They are hardly that different at the core: The protagonist is either a billionaire or a geek. Then, they either have a revelation/change of heart/ or get bit by something. Then, they change into that thing. Then, halfway through the film they start to suffer from "why am I doing this and what about blah blah blah" syndrome. Then, they fight some villian that also has some complex or issue. They win. Its fine and all but its beyond formulaic at this point. I will always enjoy the original Superman films, the Nolan Batman, and a few single flicks here and there(Iron Man, Thor, Hulk) but Ive about had enough. Avengers was such a clusterfock, pointless action romp that I about fell asleep.

Originally Posted by JLaw1719

There is a difference, especially considering The Thing from '82. In comparison to the '51 version, there was actually a point to making the movie, other than mindlessly making money, which we all know it didn't. Carpenter adores the original and it was a heavily influential film on him directing. He approached the remake with a level of care that is virtually non-existent these days. It was literally a passion project and to help make it different from Hawkes' version, he followed the novella far more closely. The Thing from Another World barely resembles Who Goes There...and that's fine of course. It's own spin was put on it. Just as Carpenter did.

Fast forward to the current era, almost none of these remakes/reboots/etc are done by anyone who gave a crap about the prior version of the material. The projects are given to people who've directed only music videos and people who only want the recognition of having their name attached to a big movie title. They have no vision for what they want to do different with the material. There are exceptions, but I'm speaking about the majority.

It's always been about making money. Look at the Val Lewton films from the 40's. Prior to actually making the movie, it doesn't get much more formulaic than that....a strict set budget of $150,000 or less no matter what, the title of the movie before a script is even written, and a run time of 75 minutes I believe. All giant hurdles set up by a studio only concerned about making a buck. But the care went into making the films makes them memorable and important to the horror genre.

But it's just different today. It's such a fine tuned formula at this point. Making these movies is mostly a souless and empty process. There is little effort to make these films even decent. All they care about is that they have the name recognition, the installed fan base, and going about it the cheapest way possible.

I've long ago quit being upset about the idea of a remake in general. It's the process of how they're made these days which bothers me. And it seems this current era of remakes seems a lot different, compared to remakes in the past. Plus the fact that the fact they're simply at an all time high.

Well said - another point I like to make about remakes and stuff is that most people dont mind a reboot or remake IF the original was heavily flawed, totally outdated, not epic enough or just plain cheesey. The original Thing was pretty laughable. The Carpenter version craps all over it. Same with The Fly - the Goldblum version is 10000x better than the original. There are more examples but you get the idea. The problems arise when they go rebooting or remaking something that simply doesnt need it. Fright Night, Superman, etc, etc. Many more fall into this category and you have to wonder WHY they had to do it? Money...I suppose. How long until Disney reboots Star Wars or they remake LOTR? Dont laugh, they'll probably try it.

[Riddler The Slag]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

You have to think that Stan Winston would have been nothing but a broke, alcoholic living on skid row had he been born today.

That thought shook me to the core. The man was genius and one of the most awesome people I ever had the priveledge of meeting.

[hsox05]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The problems arise when they go rebooting or remaking something that simply doesnt need it. Fright Night, Superman, etc, etc. Many more fall into this category and you have to wonder WHY they had to do it? Money...I suppose.

How about "I Spit On Your Grave"? That CERTAINLY didn't need to be remade, and they didn't even give it a full theatrical release to make a bunch of money on it. So what the hell was the point?