What kind of things would you want to see less of in movies or movies reviews?

Personnally, I despise seeing a movie review which includes the words "this movie if a rip-off of 'Jaws' or any similar phrase, especcially considering that most of the time the only similarity is that an animal is eating people. Do the people who write these phrases think nobody was eaten by an animal, ever, until 'Jaws' was produced?! The irony is that most, if not all of these movies have infinitely better plots than 'Jaws'.

In actual movies, I don't like scenes that resemble scenes in movies that recently came out. While the remake of 'The Omen' has a lot of scenes that are very true to the original 'The Omen', it also features a death scene very early on that I don't remember being in the original version of 'The Omen' and looks very heavily like something that would happen in a 'Final Destination' movie.

I also don't like movies that only exist for the mindless use of special effects.

I don't like going to the theater to see a scary movie and find out its almost like the one I saw last time at the theater...

I also hate seeing movies that overdramatize and use too much special effects...

Lack of a plot, lousy actors, too much special effects, cheesiness, cliche plots

Very, very loud things that pop up in a cheap attempt to scary, what happened to the messing with your mind abit till a little noise or a tap on the shoulder will make you jump?

Also hate remakes, book films and game films. They are always bad.

I don't like films with huge budgets, they make everything so fancy that they forget about all the REAL things that make a movie good. I don't like movie reviewers, or in fact, any reviewer, who speak of things in a generic manner but there are still a lot of simple-minded fools out there that religiously believe thier word without investingating it themselves, or looking for a second opinion. That is all.

My dad believes those guys.. XD

Sometimes I go online and look at reviews and make sure to read them all.

If you want an in-your-face action movie that leaves you on the edge of your seat and has one of our favorite action heros, like Bruce Willis or Arney, go see the movies that the reviewers rate HORRIBLY XD

movies of a fake/ exaggerated past life of a famous person..

Example: 50 cent's movie...

I don't like books made into films.. and ones with a crapload of special effects that pulls you away from the movie... those are soo annoying.

And I hate long movies... where a lot of the scenes are just talk, no action.

Cosigned. Never watch that crap.

For me: film critics. I rarely or never listen to them unless I go and see it for myself. Listen to a friend's opinion is okay though.

Ditto here.

I don't watch a lot of movies because of this. Also I'm not much of a movie person in general.

*coughallmodernfilmscoughcough* :D

I hate seeing advertisements for films, syaign how scary they are, then watch them, only for them to turn out more funny, than anything else. IE Hostel, Hills Have Eyes, See No Evil.

I also hate it when the commericals happen to show all the funny scenes, like Madagascar. All the good scenes are in the commercials.

I hate trailers.

"Look! We're revealing the premise of the movie, now the plot, now the good scenes and theme song! But if you go watch, there'll STILL BE SOME LEFT TO SEE, WE PROMISE!"

That movie spelled "desperate attempt at self-promotion" ><;;

Things that annoy me: overly cynical movie reviewers, endless remakes/sequels, cheesy horror movies. o_O But I think everyone's already said that.

I don't like going to the movies and having to sit through the 10 minutes of previews.. Which are often preceeded by a Coke ad, and a don't-pirate-movies ad. I HATE those... being a computer person it makes me feel guilty--yet I've never downloaded a movie illegally.

On the subject, I can't stand the prices of movie junk food.. Like.. 4.50 for a medium bag of popcorn, 3.75 for a large drink.. 2.50 for a small box of candy (that you could sneak in from walmart, that cost you 99 cents...)

I download movies all the time, as I do NOT rent. They want to complain that people who download print and sell copies, making a profit, while the industry makes non. But video rental places are the same. Someone buys the film, same as the idiot who rips it. Then, the film is distributed, only, instead of like online how the burned copies are crappy, and free, and more reason to just buy the film tog et extras, and better quality, rental places make a profit, give perfect quality to dozens for ripping, ect.

I much rather support downloading than accually renting.

Coke ads are annoying, indeed. That stupid diet coke witht he bouncing bubbles is all over.

I'm impressed at how little Pirates of the Caribbean 2 is being advertised. I live in Michigan, Detriot area, big city, lots of people, lots of money, but still, no bill boards, not too many commercials, nothing much at all. They advertised the hell out of MI3 and they STILL haven't ment the numbers needed to pay for all they had do for the film.

Sad...

I can't wait to see the second film. My friend had the 2nd one downloaded over a month ago. Thats insane. I would rather see it in widescreen, and surround sound.

In addition to what I said about the 'Jaws' fanatics, there's also the first Jurassic Park... the people who made the second one myust have worked extremely hard to turn failure into victory. At least the third one had that Spinosaurus thing, which means it had one good thing about it, which, in turn, makes it better than the original Jurassic Park. At any rate, Jurasic Park 1 and 3 both seem inferior to Carnosaur 1 and 3. I haven't seen Carnosaur II yet. It might be the only one to not be better than its equivalent Jurassic Park movie, mainlyy because Jurassic Park: The Lost World was the only Jurassic Park that actually was a good movie. It's actually dissapointing that things like Carnosaur and G-movies get rated "B-movies" or "bad movies" because of nothing other than special effects, possibly the most trivial thing in any movie, and mediocre stuff like Peter Jackson movies, GINO, and the first Jurassic Park get praise heaped on them for the same trival thing, and the Saw movies and Hostel get praise heaped on them for being violent and having no plot..

(NOTE: The second Jurassic Park introduced Nick Hopewell, who, from what I remember, was the most wanted character to make a return appearence in JUrassic Park IV, but it was confirmed he wouldn't be in it. But, since Jurassic Park IV's production has obviously been delayed (it was supposed to come out last year), its possible that the actor has finished with whatever he was concentrating on in order to not be able to be in Jurassi Park IV initially)

And, as someone mentioned Hostel... Hostel, and both Saw movies are utter garbage. Aside from being nothing but violence, the entire way through, what's the point of them? And how can anyone possibly like them? Even if you were obsessed with violence and murder, wouldn't you get bored after ninety minutes or more of it?

Oh, and there's also GMK... it's considered to be a real (I.E. along with the others except for GINO) G-Movie and its actually worse than GINO. How did Toho succeed in making a movie worse than GINO?!

Despite all the movies that use CGI, I've only seen CGI used well once, and that was in a TV series, Bakuryuu Sentai Abarenger (Even then, they switched the CGI evolved dinosaurs with suit actors to help cover up how mediocre CGI is. In addition to which, Bakuryuu Sentai Abarenger is the only instance in which the special effects people actually made it look as if CGI creatures were physically there..

(For an example of CGI creatures that don't look like they're physically there, look at GINO, for example. Although his footprints break through the ground, when he runs, the ground he's standing on isn't affected at all; there should be a huge cloud of debris reaching at least up to his knees)

I dunno, I didn't think JP 1 was all that bad. For me it was like the first majorly done 3DCG movie I ever saw, and it had dinosaurs eating a guy on the commode. I liked 2 more and then 3 was overdone imo :/.

Then there was another movie that set a new bar for 3D action movies... The Matrix. AWESOME. Seems like now, any movie that comes out is meerly in the shadows to it, all these high tech-futuristic (usually lead female rolled) same old plot movies are just what GS was saying... nothing but special effects. But the Matrix was perfect.

Oh yeah, another thing I don't like (but still watch anyway) is all the disaster movies that came out since Twister (which was like.. the best ever). Earthquake in LA, Earthquake in NY, Night of the Twisters, and some of those made-for-tv movies like Radioactive ________. Disaster movies are great but you need to have the funny "We're all gonna die man" of Bill Paxton, and the sheer awesomeness of Helen Hunt. (and all the rag tag group of storm chasers...Van Halen, Humans Being... what a fun movie that was.)

I have to agree with Hatch. As someone who has watched Jurassic Park and its sequals, countless times, (over 400 times per film literally), I can honestly say, The first film was great, for the fact they had so much 3DCG, and for its time, it fit well. At the time Jurassic Park came out, no other films really had harnessed such techniques, with success, givent he fact JP had near perfect texture to their CG, a very expensive effect to harness. I'm still amazed at how well they matched the CG textures, to the accual replicas, and animatronics used for the films.

the second film was better than the first in my opinion, because it had more to it. In JP, they get to the island, go for a ride, dinos get loose, they escape, the end. In the second film, there is a lot more to the plot. As well, in my opinion, better characters. Since it was made later, it had more opportunities for CG, and thus, it had better textures, and actions, which made its dino scenes far better.

JP3 is a joke, honestly. I do realise the Spino was "cool", but thats all there was to the film. The fight scene was too long, a "scenic tour" over the island, as cover to kidnap what's his face, so they can find the son, yeah right. Parasailing? on a dino Island? bullshit.

Flying dino's attacks animals (humans) almost half the size of their body? Goes against every single predatory flight animal, asside from the harpy eagle. Ellie sending the army/navy and marines? First of all it takes days to sail from California to hawaii, and i know the location of the islands in the film are not too far from land, I doubt highly there happen to be all those ships just "hanging around"... As well, the military would shoot those flying dinos down in seconds.

I also doubt the digestive track of the Spino is as fast as to crap out that guy in a mere 12 hours. Reptiles have very slow digestive tracks, and larger ones are even slower.

I know I'm anylising, but its obvious nitpicking. I can't stand it when people rave about the Spino, when the film itself lacked a plot worth a dime, no good acting, and had only a 7 second appearance of Creotasaurus, one of the smaller, but still deadly carnivors.

Creo was obviously ment for fighting, and hunting with the teeth, thick spine, and huge horn on its nose, with inches of bone beneath it, similar to a mountain goats skull and horns. T-rex had a big skull, but Creo had inches of bone, and a solid horn that could smash bones to tiny peices, and knock the wind out of just about anything below a Saurapod.

Annnnyways, its hard to type while eating.... lol

Scientific people haven't considered dinosaurs to be reptiles* ** for several years by the time this movie was made, and books/movies are generally researched before they're made, so it wasn't a reptile.

* = incidentially, what sets them apart from the PTeranodons, and swimming reptiles like Mosaurs, is that those are considered to be reptiles.

** = Although very little, if anything, that humans "know" about dinosaurs can be considered to be fact***. Very nearly everything humans "know" about dinosaurs is just a theory. This is also why the T-Rex maniacs, I.E. people who grew up "knowing" that T-Rexes were the most lethal carnivore on Earth at that time, are so annoying, and in fact they are possibly the most annoying people in the world.

*** = For all we know, Triceratopses were carnivores. They could have used the horn on their noses to lift slmaller dinosaurs and then used their teeth to crush the dinosaur's bones at the joints****, so that the Triceratops could swallow the victim entirely.

**** = which could possibly causea similar result to that thing used by either alligators or crocodiles (i forget which) that is referred to as a 'death roll' that disolcates the victim's joints and causes it to lose its shape somewhat.

I love thumbnails... BUT HATE JURRASIC PARK! Look what they did to one of the few meat-eating theropods that I can stand! They made him tiny and gave him a stupid frill! Derek the Dilophosaurus MAD! And why don't they ever portray the pterosaurs in a cool position? How about some Dimophodons attacking and killing someone in a hang glider? But nooo, let's make them look like losers!
Oh no! Rayse ranted? *takes a chill pill and sips some cherry-flavored haterade*

Your Triceratops comment is completely foolful. No predator today hunts by impaling tis prey, asside from sea dwelling animals, as well, they teeth would be incapable of tearing flesh apart. Predators need to tear into the skin, THEN, pull strips of meat for cumsumption, Tri lacks any ability to tear, or pull with the teeth it has.

Their teeth are set further back, making it even harder.

Dinosaurs did not come before reptiles.... hey were most likely, according to any scientist worth they weight, evolved from them, or branched off. There are reptilian species that date far before the first dino bone is dated.

As well, note the length most large reptilians have. Even if Dinos evolved away from reptiles, to be their own type, they would still somewhat mimic previus species, of which are still having decendants today.

Saying they were predators goes against everything every learned on the physical attributes required for performing certain functions in life.

Sorry to say, but thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

If you remember from the movie, the one guy palentologist had a theory that dinosaurs became birds. *shrug* Being a bird owner, I can see how they'd have come to that conclusion, but birds afaik have a very quick moving digestion :P

Its not really important... XD But on a related note, for my cell phone I wrote the same ring tone. Considering its a trac fone and I get BEEPs for my rings the selection sucked, so I made my own, and based it off of the one from the satelite phone. XD

The key sequence I used for the phone looks like this: 8g1 8e1 16f1 16e1 8d1 8c1 8g1 8c2 8c1 @ 112 BPM

Type it in and listen to it. LAWL

[QUOTE ,Jul 2 2006, 02:31 PM] No predator today hunts by impaling tis prey

Sorry to say, but thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
[/QUOTE]

Today must be a naturally great day for "dumbness" then, because your logic seems to be immensely flawed. For one thing, I can't think of a single animal "today" that has a huge sail thing on its back, or a kind of club-like thing at the end of its tail.

[QUOTE=HaTcH,Jul 2 2006, 02:31 PM] If you remember from the movie, the one guy palentologist had a theory that dinosaurs became birds.
[/QUOTE]
This is what most people believe today, incidentally.

I'll do it to mine when I charge the battery. I have a Tracfone too. lol

Hey Geno, if you had half a brain-cell you would have considered EVOLUTION before commenting on my post.... Only Sailfish, Marlin, Norwhale, have anything resembling a spike, to impale prey.

And yes, animals today have similar anatomy to dinos. There ARE lizards with sails, given they use them for flight, rather than heat absorption, and there ARE animals with thick body parts for self defense.

Just because they are somewhat different in appearance, means nothing in the world of Evolution, so yes, today seems to be a day of "dumbness" by reading your posts.... Thanks for clarifying that. :)