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.

Voss wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
[
I have no particular issue with Sophie Turner, but Jean Grey was always one of my least favourite characters anyway. It would certainly have been much less of an issue if they had chosen a different story arc that focused on other characters rather than wasting a movie rehashing the Dark Phoenix saga.

That's a large part of why Dark Phoenix doesn't translate well to film (also getting the same guy to try the same stupid version of the story that didn't work the first time...) but I digress. I big part of why the original comic was a big deal was that Jean was boring. She was a nothing character that mostly served as a romantic interest/mother hen for the team. That's what made turning her into the villain such a huge moment in comics.

Well partly that* but also the years of build-up. Her 'turn' is after multiple years of background buildup (psychic seduction/manipulation), and her villain arc is 10 months of comics. You can't replicate that in a single film... though they could have at least tried something other than the director's terrible option. An innate 'dark side' imprisoned by Xavier is all sorts of levels of squick.

*which is mostly 1970s inability to do much with female characters, both from culture and censorship.

Exactly. Doing the Phoenix saga would have required laying foundations in X1/X2, and then continuing the process through all the other X-movies until it came to a final conclusion in the Dark Phoenix movie. It wouldn't have to follow the comic plotlines beat for beat, but it needed to happen as a slow build and not an 'all at once' occurance.

Ahtman wrote:The original Nightmare on Elm Street was just fine with Depp in it.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:YeH, he made a big splash in that movie.

Oh, you.


So far as Sophie Turner, I have seen nothing from any of her performances to indicate she has any talent or charisma. Dark Phoenix was doomed to failure anyway for reasons already described, but she certainly contributed very little to improve it.

She is iceberg lettuce as a person.

I wouldn’t go that far. She has the alluring quality of not being Jared Leto.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I wouldn’t go that far. She has the alluring quality of not being Jared Leto.

Bob wins the internets, have an exult

I've only seen jared leto in Bladerunner 2049 and formed a low opinion right there.

He was great in Lord of War, Requiem for a Dream, and Dallas Buyer's Club, fwiw.

I guess I haven’t seen any of those. I did see him as Jordan Catalano, though.

Unfortunately.

 Ouze wrote:

So far as Sophie Turner, I have seen nothing from any of her performances to indicate she has any talent or charisma.

Her Sansa is one on my favorite characters in Game of Thrones. Much better than Emilia Clarke for sure, which IMHO can't act at all bust she's prettier and extremely funny and charismatic during interviews.

Speaking of GoT I think the worst actors that almost ruined the show are ironically the two that are most loved by the fans, Emilia Clarke and Kit Harington. Both characters are well written but all the interest in him basically died after the battle against the wildlings in season 4 or 5, while she has no expression in the entire tv series. Just like in Terminator Genysis or Solo, but those movie are terrible for multiple reasons; it's certainly not her (dull) performance that ruined them.

I don’t think Emilia Clarke is particularly a bad actor; I think she was very well suited to the early seasons when Daenerys is a lost girl finding her way. She just doesn’t have the power/presence for High Queen. Same for Sarah Connor; Linda Hamilton had (has?!) an intensity in that role that she just can’t match.

Emilia Clarke wasn't what ruined GoT.

That wasn't a problem of actors, but of writing.

 Tyran wrote:
Emilia Clarke wasn't what ruined GoT.

That wasn't a problem of actors, but of writing.

I assume probably you say so because you didn't like how her storyline ended. IMHO they should have put her to that path way earlier, the mad queen twist is one of the best ideas in the more recent seasons of GoT, even if poorly developed.

I'm telling something different: I couldn't stand her character from day 1, not just season 8. Maybe because her storyline was never connected to all the other characters for a long time, but I've always considered the worst part of the show every moment she was on screen.

And the fact that I couldn't stand her pretty much in anything she's starred (with the exception of Me Before You) despite being very funny and interesting outside acting makes me think she's a very bad actress.

I throw in Temple of Doom. There's options on this one but I consider it worse than Crystal Skull.

Ooof temple of doom had soooo many bad jokes in there that made it worse.

 Blackie wrote:


I assume probably you say so because you didn't like how her storyline ended.

True, but I also didn't like how every other storyline ended.

Or are you telling me you liked Jaime throwing his entire character growth to the trashcan to die together with Cersei? Or the White Walkers plot being resolved in episode 3 (because apparently Arya mastered tactical teleportation) instead of being the final boss?

 Blackie wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Emilia Clarke wasn't what ruined GoT.

That wasn't a problem of actors, but of writing.

I assume probably you say so because you didn't like how her storyline ended. IMHO they should have put her to that path way earlier, the mad queen twist is one of the best ideas in the more recent seasons of GoT, even if poorly developed.

I'm telling something different: I couldn't stand her character from day 1, not just season 8. Maybe because her storyline was never connected to all the other characters for a long time, but I've always considered the worst part of the show every moment she was on screen.

And the fact that I couldn't stand her pretty much in anything she's starred (with the exception of Me Before You) despite being very funny and interesting outside acting makes me think she's a very bad actress.

I was seeing that path from day one too. She essentially cheated in her every victory. Gets army for free through loophole, gets city for free, through loophole. gets Dothrakie, through loophole. And the entire time she is being built up by her followers as this god queen, i knew the second she would face resistance, she would change.

I wouldn’t say it was for free. She had to earn it through sacrifice...by making passionate love to Jason Momoa.

I see lots of posts about bad actors ruining a movie; how about the other half of the subject - bad characters ruining a movie?

Avoiding the obvious target (TLJ), I'll head over to a different low-hanging fruit, The Hobbit, and the elf maiden there explicitly there for the needless romance subplot. Watched it once, and once was too much because of that awful change.

Any movie that has Robert Downey Junior in it, I automatically lose any interest in watching. It was bad enough having to see his face plastered on every cinema wall and posters or commercials. I suppose this also applies to most of Hollywood, I get the feeling I am watching a herd of sheep milling around in a field, rather than seeing professional actors who take pride in their occupation.

 Tyran wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


I assume probably you say so because you didn't like how her storyline ended.

True, but I also didn't like how every other storyline ended.

Or are you telling me you liked Jaime throwing his entire character growth to the trashcan to die together with Cersei? Or the White Walkers plot being resolved in episode 3 (because apparently Arya mastered tactical teleportation) instead of being the final boss?

Gonna split hairs somewhat, but for me the problem wasn’t bad writing. It was a lack of writing.

All the time it was adapting the books. It was ace. But when that material started to run out, it did go downhill. And that’s solely on GRRM for not getting on with it.

Consider. The show runners were hired for an adaptation. Taking someone else’s writing and translating to a different media is not the same as writing it all from scratch.

It’s like asking someone to copy say, the Mona Lisa (used here as a commonly known artwork). Then, that done, asking the same artist to create a new painting in the style of Da Vinci.

 Vulcan wrote:
I see lots of posts about bad actors ruining a movie; how about the other half of the subject - bad characters ruining a movie?

Avoiding the obvious target (TLJ), I'll head over to a different low-hanging fruit, The Hobbit, and the elf maiden there explicitly there for the needless romance subplot. Watched it once, and once was too much because of that awful change.

The Hobbit movies did unseemly things to the source materials.

But I’m not sure where to lay the blame. It feels like someone was handed the Hollywood Blockbuster Checklist (tm) and told to make sure all the boxes were ticked. And make it a trilogy. We know Peter Jackson could do a true rendition, and do it well. While some things in the LoTR movies bug me, I understand why they were done. Movies are different animals from books. And they were more “bending” the books to halp make things happen.

The Hobbit movies invented stuff whole cloth. For no other reason than to tick “romantic interest” or “chase scene” off a list. I get adding the stuff with the White Council. Tose events happened in the timeframe, just off camera in the books. But most of the other crap? No need. Could have shaved a whiole movie worth of the it out and they would be better for it.

/oldnerdrant

 Nevelon wrote:
Could have shaved a whiole movie worth of the it out and they would be better for it.

IIRC, Jackson wanted to do two movies, but the studio wanted a trilogy.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
I see lots of posts about bad actors ruining a movie; how about the other half of the subject - bad characters ruining a movie?

Avoiding the obvious target (TLJ), I'll head over to a different low-hanging fruit, The Hobbit, and the elf maiden there explicitly there for the needless romance subplot. Watched it once, and once was too much because of that awful change.

The Hobbit movies did unseemly things to the source materials.

But I’m not sure where to lay the blame. It feels like someone was handed the Hollywood Blockbuster Checklist (tm) and told to make sure all the boxes were ticked. And make it a trilogy. We know Peter Jackson could do a true rendition, and do it well. While some things in the LoTR movies bug me, I understand why they were done. Movies are different animals from books. And they were more “bending” the books to halp make things happen.

The Hobbit movies invented stuff whole cloth. For no other reason than to tick “romantic interest” or “chase scene” off a list. I get adding the stuff with the White Council. Tose events happened in the timeframe, just off camera in the books. But most of the other crap? No need. Could have shaved a whiole movie worth of the it out and they would be better for it.

/oldnerdrant

Plus, I believe Del Toro did most of the Pre-Production work, but then could not finish for some reason. Jackson was called in to pick up the pieces.

A bit like Snyder started Justice League, but Wedon finished the film.....

 Vulcan wrote:
I see lots of posts about bad actors ruining a movie; how about the other half of the subject - bad characters ruining a movie?

Avoiding the obvious target (TLJ), I'll head over to a different low-hanging fruit, The Hobbit, and the elf maiden there explicitly there for the needless romance subplot. Watched it once, and once was too much because of that awful change.

Still baffled exactly how the Hobbit films became such a fumble, suspect trying to hammer the tale into prequel shape was a big part of it and stretching to three films, but to circle back on topic any character Martin Freeman plays, he's the bloke version of Jennifer Aniston wherein everything he does is repurposed Tim from The Office

Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula is the first one that comes to mind.

Sophie Turner is incredibly mediocre, but she did a good job early on. She just doesn't emote very well.

Emilia Clarke did a good job throughout, but I still think she was horrible choice for Daenyrs.

RDJ is an incredible actor, but only excels playing eccentric characters.

 Easy E wrote:

Plus, I believe Del Toro did most of the Pre-Production work, but then could not finish for some reason. Jackson was called in to pick up the pieces.

And wasn't given time to do his own pre-production, so far too start filming on the fly.

I read an article a while back that mentioned that the battle of five armies was basically just a bunch of random battles scenes filmed by Andy Serkis while Jackson was busy elsewhere, that they hoped they would be able to stitch into a coherent sequence later, because they didn't have time to plot out the whole thing.

A bit like Snyder started Justice League, but Wedon finished the film.....

I still find it somewhat amusing that the entire internet was complaining about Snyder's dark take on the DC universe...then Justice League came out, and everyone was suddenly demanding Snyder's version.

Not to get too deep into the Snyder Cut business, but you could always put the emphasis of 'vocal' on the concept of 'vocal minority.'

I don't follow any Snyder Cult people on Twitter, but I do follow various comic writers, artists etc. Whenever ANY of them made any reference to live action superheroes that could even be linked to the Snyder Cut in the TINIEST of way, they'd get people barraging them. - It got to the point that I was really starting to recognise the account names of the worst of them.

Weirdly, many of them were apparently 'producers' of the Snyder Cut... Somehow... Never really cared enough to follow it up.

Long term though, there really is going to be some interesting parallels in the history of cinema when it comes to Justice League and the Hobbit, but I imagine it will be a long time, if ever, before the details open out in the air.


As for the Hobbit, I'd have been the first in the line to complain about the movies, how disappointing and awful and terrible they are compared to my beloved Lord of the Rings.

But then, a few years ago, I saw this Behind the Scenes video on the movie.




And my opinion completely changed on it and, the truth is, I can kind of enjoy the movies now, because I don't have these sky high expectations, I've seen the stress and the environment everyone was working under to make them and, well, I just guess I have a lot more empathy for it now, so I can appreciate all the work they put in to even just get the movies out of the door.

 Pacific wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I'll get the easy answer out of the way.

"I don't like sand, it's coarse, it's rough, it's irritating and it gets everywhere."

There is definitely an (I think) valid, longstanding criticism of Hollywood that they too often choose actors for their looks over their acting ability.
But it's arguable that not even Laurence Olivier could have done much with that line!

Low-hanging fruit but yes, this exactly the example that sprang to mind for me

I actually thought the child actor was much better, but teenage Vader... what a wasted opportunity!

I don't see how a Snyder cut is supposed to fix the major issue of the Justice League: That DC didn't want to take the time needed to establish the characters aside of Superman.

With The Hobbit, one of the biggest problems to me was that a lot of the action scenes would have been a better fit for Pirates of the Caribbean than Lord of the Rings. Rather than being tense and exciting, they were downright zany too much of the time. Also Tauriel was a lame addition; while Evangeline Lilly is certainly easy on the eyes, the whole romance subplot was not only contrived for the movie, but it just felt so...forced. However, she is not what ruined that trilogy; it was a combination of factors, including poor writing, ropey CGI, stupid story additions, and massively over-the-top action/chase scenes.

All that being said, there were some things in those movies that were absolutely amazingly well done. Smaug may have been CGI, but unlike a lot of the Orc characters he's actually GREAT CGI and looked like he jumped from the pages of the book, plus Benedict Cumberbatch did an amazing job voicing the character. The sets and props, overall, were stellar, with a crazy amount of attention to detail that we expect from Weta Workshop after how well they did on The Lord of the Rings. And overall, the casting was pretty solid, too, I thought (my only minor gripe was that Thorin looked a bit too young, but the actor played the character reasonably well so I let it slide).

 Tyran wrote:
I don't see how a Snyder cut is supposed to fix the major issue of the Justice League: That DC didn't want to take the time needed to establish the characters aside of Superman.

One of the funny things about that is that there's an animated movie that basically IS Justice League, and might even end up being *closer* to the final Snyder Cut than Josstice League...

It's not the BEST of movies out there, and I've got plenty of issues with some characterisation (Looking at you Diana), but Justice League: War basically did most things the live action movie did, but better, AND had to introduce not just more characters than JL, but the whole rebooted universe as well.

You'd watch the movie, you could work out exactly who Shazam was, Cyborg was, why you should care about them. You learned everything major about the Green Lanterns and Hal Jordan, through one conversation with Batman in a sewer.

Like I said, it wasn't a perfect movie by any means, but several of the characters had actual *arcs* in the story and it didn't need to be a 6 hour miniseries.