I don’t really care about Star Wars

top 92 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 117 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I don't want big name celebrities doing voice over for animated movies. Give me actual VAs

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Is Mark Hamill an exception? Or is he a voice actor that happens to have done some face acting as well?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    I actually like sitting in the first few rows.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    I actually saw a family arguing about this today. The mother was like "we can sit anywhere, don't you wanna sit down here in the front" and the daughter was like "no, I don't want to crane my neck". I was mildly annoyed because there was assigned seating and therefore the mother was encouraging rule breaking, but I minded my own business and didn't say anything

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 75 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    I genuinely do not want to see famous actors in any media, at all. I don't want to recognize anyone in a movie.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 8 months ago

    My son is big cinephile, and he complains about how contemporary movies are all filled with people who look like nepo-baby actors. He says they all have iPhone face: no matter what time period they're supposed to be in, they all look like they've seen an iPhone.

    He longs for the old days when older unattractive actors were in demand as character actors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago

    The Bear had an episode with a family reunion where everyone was a famous actor, so you have some familiarity with them, but they were so characterized, it wasn't off-putting.

    I do agree though those actors that are always the same persona (e.g. The Rock), do throw me away from what I'm watching.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 29 points 8 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    I can still find modern special effects interesting enough if I find them aesthetically interesting – as though a lot of thought clearly went into them. I understand there were minimal hurdles to translating that vision to film, but it's the vision itself I appreciate.

    I also definitely get the same feeling you do watching older films and especially stage plays, where the constraints of the medium make it even more impressive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Precisely.

    Part of the awe of watching movies (The so-called movie magic) is that at the same time as you're in awe of the film, there's a part of you in awe of how much collaborative work it took to create that stunt/effect/miniature, etc...

    There's no magic anymore when one can just do the same thing in Blender at home if they had enough time to learn.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (14 children)

    Regular actors should stick to regular acting and leave voice acting to voice actors.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    Is this a hot take?

    Chris Pratt as Mario was when a lot of people went "wtf why?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    A lot of people wouldn't even know about it if Chris Pratt wasn't in it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I think you highly underestimate the cultural catchet of Mario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    Oh man, the idea that you consider the worst Chris to be a bigger draw than Mario. Wow

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    I think it's more about drawing other audiences. Kids and gamers will absolutely watch Mario. If you cast Pratt, you could probably pull marvel fans as well. Using the og Mario voice actor may miss out on those sales

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

    Again he's the worst Chris. He's not a draw for anybody. Great actors can be draws. That ain't him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Okay, just as a caveat I know we should let this go and it doesn't really matter and it's obviously all subjective. However I'm just deathly curious, do you consider Chris Pratt a great actor? Cuz I've never heard anyone say that and I'd be fascinated to find otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I did enjoy him on parks and rec but I think he's good at the roles he's filling, golden retriever comedic relief that can take on action scenes and will be generally liked by the average American.

    He's no Anthony Hopkins or Daniel Day-Lewis but he's got general audience pull and that goes back to why they'd cast him as Mario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    National Movie theaters are now trying to show UFC and sports games. I support it. Because there's a lot of abandoned movie theaters and I would rather them fill seats with anything, than become the dying empty malls.

    Also, I don't go to national movie theaters. My local neighborhood theater charges $5 for movies and $3 for pizza and popcorn.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago

    The amount of computer generated special effects used in a movie directly correlates with the likelihood of me not liking it.

    Superhero movies for example are completely unwatchable because of this.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Having The Rock in your movie makes it worse.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I think you're reversing causality. Movies that were bound to be bad cast The Rock. We need to experiment by casting The Rock in a Paul Thomas Anderson.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    More theaters need a rotation of classics. There's a whole subset of movies I'd love to see in theaters again and having to wait for some small theater half an hour away to show one of those for one weekend a year is a bummer.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    We have a local theater here that basically only runs classics, it's pretty great.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Sorry, chief. Best we can do is a lousy remake instead. That's because the licensing rights for oldies are too hard to figure out so we can't be bothered, and all creativity in Hollywood died in 1999.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Nuh-uh. What about the matrix?

    Shit. You're right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Yeah. I've had people fight me tooth and nail repeatedly that the Matrix was a "2000s movie." I think this is another one of those Berenstain Bears things.

    (Most likely people watched it on DVD in the year 2000, since for a while there The Matrix was the movie that sold DVD players.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    The film/tv industry really really sucks at showing smart people.

    Oppenheimer sucked. Barbie was only good in comparison to how much shittier stuff there is nowadays.

    I haven't seen a movie in years where exposition scenes haven't felt like they were directed by a condescending 5th grader.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    That will happen when you have writers who aren't as smart as the characters they're trying to write for and studios scared of putting out anything that audiences may not understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Throwback to this great rant:

    So apart from tumblr fanbase, why doesn't /tv/ like this show?

    Because it has smart characters written stupidly.

    Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men is a smartly written smart character. When Chigurh kills a hotel room full of three people he books to room next door so he can examine it, finding which walls he can shoot through, where the light switch is, what sort of cover is there etc. This is a smart thing to do because Chigurh is a smart person who is written by another smart person who understands how smart people think.

    Were Sherlock Holmes to kill a hotel room full of three people. He'd enter using a secret door in the hotel that he read about in a book ten years ago. He'd throw peanuts at one guy causing him to go into anaphylactic shock, as he had deduced from a dartboard with a picture of George Washington carver on it pinned to the wall that the man had a severe peanut allergy. The second man would then kill himself just according to plan as Sherlock had earlier deduced that him and the first man were homosexual lovers who couldn't live without eachother due to a faint scent of penis on each man's breath and a slight dilation of their pupils whenever they looked at each other. As for the third man, why Sherlock doesn't kill him at all. The third man removes his sunglasses and wig to reveal he actually WAS Sherlock the entire time. But Sherlock just entered through the Secret door and killed two people, how can there be two of him? The first Sherlock removes his mask to reveal he's actually Moriarty attempting to frame Sherlock for two murders. Sherlock however anticipated this, the two dead men stand up, they're undercover police officers, it was all a ruse. "But Sherlock!" Moriarty cries "That police officer blew his own head off, look at it, there's skull fragments on the wall, how is he fine now? How did you fake that?". Sherlock just winks at the screen, the end.

    This is retarded because Sherlock is a smart person written by a stupid person to whom smart people are indistinguishable from wizards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Sure and perhaps I'm wrong but just because you aren't one doesn't mean you don't know any. Heck they often get consultants for medical shows for some bits of realism. How hard would it be to talk to some actual scientists and engineers (would probably be pretty cheap) when you're already spending millions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Hollywood uses experts on set all the time. And then ignores the expert's advice (and common sense) because the director wanted a certain "thing" that would never actually happen.

    Low hanging fruit, but one example would be the movie "Lucy", based entirely on the debunked myth that humans use only 10% of their brain.

    Another example: The beloved Game of Thrones episode "Battle of the Bastards" features several battle scenes that are physically impossible (like using a HUGE pile of bodies as a fortification). The director said he absolutely knew that his depiction was impossible. How many of his expert advisers do you suppose just walked away shaking their heads in puzzlement?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Hot take: movie goers are so used to suspension of disbelief that movies are too afraid to take risks that challenge the audience.

    Like Netflix pushing every movie to say the plot.

    But also, how many braindead takes from "influencers" or morons who don't understand the film.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Cinema popcorn is inferior because they can get away with low quality. There's plenty of good popcorn around, but it's rarely found at the movies.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I'll hottake that hottake: cinema popcorn is amazing (around here at least), and I think a lot of that comes from key ingredients they use. One is "Flavacol" seasoning, and the other is butter-flavored coconut oil. Makes a world of difference, assuming you like a buttery taste.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I’ll hot take your hot take of that hot take: Cinema popcorn is best the day after a movie when it’s stale

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    That's when it tastes like plastic IME. Big yikes from me, but different strokes for different folks.

    Btw, I happen to love crispy popcorn, and figured out that you can rescue stale popcorn & other snacks by tossing them in the air-fryer a little bit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    lol It’s cool, I know not many people like it. I also love other weird things like candy corn and valentines sweetheart candy. I do draw a line at black licorice though.

    Good tip on how to refresh stale popcorn though!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    So some tricks from ex cinema employee. Use canola oil and yellow Popcorn kernels and a Aluminum bowl That you can buy from a restaurant supply store.

    • salt kernels before you cover then with oil.

    • Fill the oil to just enough to cover the kernels.

    • Then cover the bowl with Aluminum foil. And roll the bowl over the stove on medium heat. Till it starts popping

    • then use More canola oil for butter Lightly Spritzed in a spray bottle.

    • That will give you perfect theater popcorn at home.

    Optional secret ingredient Tajin instead of salt

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I'm fucking sick of remakes.

    Not every film needs to have a sex scene.

    Films can be so bad that they're good. Black Sheep for instance is terrible but also good.

    CGI has ruined the old school prop departments

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Hear me out here... I want more remakes. But remakes for the right reasons.

    White Men Cant Jump was a good movie for 1992, but it was hardly oscar bait. The 2023 remake wasnt bad, it was a fun revisit. I enjoy it because it gives me the feeling they actually had fun making it. Do it with Major League or The Replacements, dont reinvent the wheel just make a VERY similar movie with serious actors who want to have some fun, break their mould, tell some dick jokes. Dont cast whoever is currently hot or someone I've seen in 28 contrived comedies. I want Timothee Chalomet and Benedict Cumberpatch as players with unusual names have an in character argument about who has the stupider name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Do you just watch films about sports?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    NGL I do love a good sports movie but those are the easiest low hanging fruit examples I can think of because you dont even need to pretend like the original didnt happen,"Our baseball team sucks AGAIN" isnt a complicated plot. You can reference the original, update the humor, have cameos and its all just fun.

    They need to stop trying to remake and reboot beloved franchises that nobody is asking to have remade. Remake fun, make it fun and let people eat popcorn.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Cinematic universes shouldn't live forever. At some point, there is just too much of it, both for people making it and for people watching it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    I think it's more that we turned cinematic universes into a forced content machine to have x number of side character movies per year, with one major tentpole event every few years, with tv shows, video games, and comics all filing in gaps along the way. It's exhausting. I'm fine with a connected universe that is allowed to live and breathe in it's own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Probably not a hot take but audio mixes are often dreadful. If I have to turn on subtitles to understand what someone is saying because they've been buried in the mix, someone fucked up and that person shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a mixing console again.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Inception isn't that great.

    It's complex for the sake of complexity and the complication needlessly makes the story more difficult to parse. The revelation about there being an additional layer before reality is such an overused trope that it wasn't an interesting twist and added nothing to the plot.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago*

    I didn't find the movie to be that complicated or difficult to understand. it had a lot of cool visuals that made it seem like your brain was supposed to be surprised or something. but there was nothing complicated about it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Even the worst practical effects look better long term than most CGI.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›