Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Stupid things that irritate me - actors who play the same character over and over. I know it makes for reliable returns, but it's bloody boring.
Denzel Washington plays Denzel Washington in every movie he's in. Same with Ryan Reynolds and Chris Pratt. Samuel Jackson too, except he throws in the occasional character - the bad guy in Kingsmen for one. But most of the time he plays the cool guy who shouts a lot. I saw that character in the last film - I didn't pay money to see a repeat of a film I already saw!
Ryan Reynolds could be the worst culprit for this recently. The cocky everyman who makes quick witted surreal quips ... in every movie.
Which considering I've just whinged about that makes it a bit strange that I really liked The Hitman's Bodyguard. But I think the reason for that is that both of the leads were playing the ultimate stereotype of themselves and using it for laughs.
"This guy single-handedly ruined the word m##########r"
I'm not sure when it started, but Samuel L Jackson now basically plays someone doing a bad impression of Samuel L Jackson. It might have been Pulp Fiction that started that. Look at him in Jurassic Park, for example. He plays a nerd in that.
Henry wrote: Stupid things that irritate me - actors who play the same character over and over. I know it makes for reliable returns, but it's bloody boring.
Denzel Washington plays Denzel Washington in every movie he's in. Same with Ryan Reynolds and Chris Pratt. Samuel Jackson too, except he throws in the occasional character - the bad guy in Kingsmen for one. But most of the time he plays the cool guy who shouts a lot. I saw that character in the last film - I didn't pay money to see a repeat of a film I already saw!
Ryan Reynolds could be the worst culprit for this recently. The cocky everyman who makes quick witted surreal quips ... in every movie.
Which considering I've just whinged about that makes it a bit strange that I really liked The Hitman's Bodyguard. But I think the reason for that is that both of the leads were playing the ultimate stereotype of themselves and using it for laughs.
"This guy single-handedly ruined the word m##########r"
Tome Cruise is a "young maverick" (lulz) who needs to learn a lesson about life.
Sean Bean is the noble hero everyone can relate to, because he's fallible, and then he dies.
It's called Typecasting and really it effects basically everyone in the business to some degree or another. I can't say it bothers me much until it becomes exceptionally tired. Tom Cruise has been playing the same character for most of the last 30 years, and he's frankly too old to still be playing that character. This is also why I hate Will Smith, whose been playing a smart ass prick since The Fresh Prince of Bel-air, and I never really found it to be all that charming to begin with.
I don't mind Samuel Jackson, because while it definitely has become a cliche for him to be a big angry black man he manages to make even the bad movies he's in somewhat enjoyable because he always manages to be his over the top angry self. Sean Bean just manages to be so damn charismatic on screen I can't hate him. Chris Pratt and Ryan Reynolds don't both me much either because while playing quick witted Han Solo's is their deal, the films their in are usually better for it so I don't mind.
LordofHats wrote: I'd like us all to think back and remember that one episode of TNG where the solution to the weekly crisis was turning the computer off and turning it back on, a solution that was delivered with great enthusiasm by the chief engineer who clearly thought it a brilliant and novel idea... which was never ever (literally, I can't think of any time trouble shooting 101 was ever invoked again) used again to solve any future technical problems faced by Federation personnel
How many times did they figure out some clever way to detect a cloaked ship, and then just never even try that way ever again?
My personal favorite was that on episode on DS9, where the Jem'Hadar apparently developed a new scan beam that could detect cloaked ships... which was never used brought up, or referenced ever again. Literally. The plot needed some extra tension so they threw it in and then proceeded to pretend it never happened XD
Case and point; Star Trek First Contact. Okay the Borg have somehow apparently gained the ability to travel back in time, and are now planning to assimilate all of Earth a bold move that could effectively hand them complete control of the known Star Trek universe. Well Picard foiled that plan. Gee. Guess we'll never try again- Wait a minute. We invented TIME TRAVEL. Screw that bs now that we know every move Picard is going to make we can foil is foiling of our plans. Better yet, why settle for sabotage the Flight of the Phoenix? Bugger all lets just warp on in to 1512. Humanity won't be able to even remotely oppose us. Better yet just scratch all that noise. What were we thinking? Just travel back in time to the beginning of the galaxy, and well have this whole thing assimilated before the stone age is over! <- talk about fridge logic.
Now Enterprise and Voyager tried to fix this, adding in their own runs that the Borg (for some unclear reason) respect the integrity of the timeline, and that they only traveled back in time in the first place because it was a causality loop that may well have allowed the Borg to exist in the first place, but that's just takes the stupidity of the basic premise of Star Trek First Contact and turns it from just stupid into a stupid gimmick.
These are both examples of something that does bother me. Plot holes that could be solved with a line or two of throwaway dialogue. The cloak vs detection methods could be explained by referencing a constant arms race between detection and cloaking tech. The Borg not using time travel all the time could be explained by mentioning they follow a twisted version of the prime directive, where pre warp civilizations are left alone until they produce something worth assimilating.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Something to do with the Marvel comic side of things and how they push her down readers throats all the time. gakky character that I am just tired of.
Marvel Comcis =/= Marvel Studios.
The bull gak the comics have been going through for the past few years are in no way related to or in any way controlled by the folks making the movies.
The ending of the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie.
Depp should have kept one of the coins.
Let them string him up.
Then Bloom should have paddled out in the middle of the night to let him down.
Then they paddle off into the night to presumably break the curse, with everyone else thinking that Depp is dead.
LordofHats wrote: Tome Cruise is a "young maverick" (lulz) who needs to learn a lesson about life.
Dear lord, I forgot Tom Cruise.
That was funny and very true. I do like a lot of bis movies as they are typically very watchable. But I agree the guy is sooo old for those roles now. It reminds me of Arnold being the Terminator. Like good lord man just stop!
IMO there is stuff in films that makes not alot of sense but makes the film work and does not disrupt the flow / enjoyment of the film and then there is stuff where you go "Huh what" and it disrupts.
So recently my pet hate is Bats Vs Sups
Every single moment that "Loopy" Lex Luthor is on screen - Seriously wtf was the director doing - the sheer stupiduity of Lex';s actions, his plans and his wanabee joker act - urgh painful to watch.
The Kryptonian computer that is not only fooled by Loopy Lex madcap capering antics but like an insane microsoft word prompt comes up with "Hello do you want to make a Domesday today" - what. why?
The idea that having set Sups and angry Bats against each other, potentially by burning alive supermans stepmon that you would live through the aftermath if Superman won.
Ok so there is Kyprtonian Spear that may kill both doomsday and Sups if he wields it - do you give it to the kick ass girl who is already fighting the big bad to a standstill and already chopped his arm off. Uhh no apparently not.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
I understand the actual reason it happens but the way that people in films & TV shows never finish their bloody drinks or meals really irritates me.
I caught a brief part of Eastenders -- a UK soap opera -- t'other day and some of the characters met up in the pub and then left pretty sharpish. I calculate the rounds of barely touched drinks would've set you back about £25 or so
No way real people treat their food and drinks like that.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
My hate of the cynical way DC have grimdarked Supes in the last few films cannot be understated, because you know impossibly nice Dudley Do-rights heroes won't sell, just look at how badly those films with Capt wossisname did...
I'm also starting to think I'm done with all things Super, don't think I've seen anything that I've really liked since Antman (and even then the best bits were clearly from Edgar Wright)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/22 13:59:50
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
Henry wrote: Stupid things that irritate me - actors who play the same character over and over. I know it makes for reliable returns, but it's bloody boring.
Denzel Washington plays Denzel Washington in every movie he's in. Same with Ryan Reynolds and Chris Pratt. Samuel Jackson too, except he throws in the occasional character - the bad guy in Kingsmen for one. But most of the time he plays the cool guy who shouts a lot. I saw that character in the last film - I didn't pay money to see a repeat of a film I already saw!
Ryan Reynolds could be the worst culprit for this recently. The cocky everyman who makes quick witted surreal quips ... in every movie.
Which considering I've just whinged about that makes it a bit strange that I really liked The Hitman's Bodyguard. But I think the reason for that is that both of the leads were playing the ultimate stereotype of themselves and using it for laughs.
"This guy single-handedly ruined the word m##########r"
Tome Cruise is a "young maverick" (lulz) who needs to learn a lesson about life.
Sean Bean is the noble hero everyone can relate to, because he's fallible, and then he dies.
It's called Typecasting and really it effects basically everyone in the business to some degree or another. I can't say it bothers me much until it becomes exceptionally tired. Tom Cruise has been playing the same character for most of the last 30 years, and he's frankly too old to still be playing that character. This is also why I hate Will Smith, whose been playing a smart ass prick since The Fresh Prince of Bel-air, and I never really found it to be all that charming to begin with.
I don't mind Samuel Jackson, because while it definitely has become a cliche for him to be a big angry black man he manages to make even the bad movies he's in somewhat enjoyable because he always manages to be his over the top angry self. Sean Bean just manages to be so damn charismatic on screen I can't hate him. Chris Pratt and Ryan Reynolds don't both me much either because while playing quick witted Han Solo's is their deal, the films their in are usually better for it so I don't mind.
I thought Reynolds did a good job departing from his normal schtick in Voices. Also, Bruce Willis is the worst for not acting. All he does is squint and grimly mumble his lines. He hasn't really tried since like... Fifth Element?
Bromsy wrote: I thought Reynolds did a good job departing from his normal schtick in Voices. Also, Bruce Willis is the worst for not acting. All he does is squint and grimly mumble his lines. He hasn't really tried since like... Fifth Element?
I really liked him in 16 Blocks and Hostage, but yeah, he's a bit of a mumbler in both of those too.
Henry wrote: Stupid things that irritate me - actors who play the same character over and over. I know it makes for reliable returns, but it's bloody boring.
Denzel Washington plays Denzel Washington in every movie he's in. Same with Ryan Reynolds and Chris Pratt. Samuel Jackson too, except he throws in the occasional character - the bad guy in Kingsmen for one. But most of the time he plays the cool guy who shouts a lot. I saw that character in the last film - I didn't pay money to see a repeat of a film I already saw!
Ryan Reynolds could be the worst culprit for this recently. The cocky everyman who makes quick witted surreal quips ... in every movie.
Which considering I've just whinged about that makes it a bit strange that I really liked The Hitman's Bodyguard. But I think the reason for that is that both of the leads were playing the ultimate stereotype of themselves and using it for laughs.
"This guy single-handedly ruined the word m##########r"
Agree. Christopher Walken has built his entire career out of playing Christopher Walken.
