I don't want big name celebrities doing voice over for animated movies. Give me actual VAs
post
I actually like sitting in the first few rows.
Damn. Didn’t think I’d find a psychopath in a comment thread about movies but there you go!
Thus we can only assume that you are a giraffe or an okapi.
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
I genuinely do not want to see famous actors in any media, at all. I don't want to recognize anyone in a movie.
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.
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.
Which is why I can't stand Will Smith movies. Or Vin Diesel. Or any of the other dozen actors who don't actually go out of their way and act.
I always find the first moments of movies with famous actors disconcerting. Why is Jack from Titanic here? Oh, he is not Jack from Titanic, just has his body-suit…
As much as I have issues with 2001 space odyssey, it is a technical marvel for its time.
Same. I still appreciate modern effects tho but those old movies really impress me. Have you seen The Johnstown Flood? That one kinda blew my mind
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.
Same. I watched Citizen Kane for the first time a year or two ago, and some of the shots blew my mind. Like how the fuck did he do some of that shit?
How do you feel about something like Fury Road, where they make a point of including practical effects?
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.
‘Man With a Movie Camera’ is great for this.
Regular actors should stick to regular acting and leave voice acting to voice actors.
Is this a hot take?
Chris Pratt as Mario was when a lot of people went "wtf why?"
A lot of people wouldn't even know about it if Chris Pratt wasn't in it
I think you highly underestimate the cultural catchet of Mario.
I was talking to someone about that movie, and I brought up Chris Pratt. They didn't know who he voiced in the movie.
Oh man, the idea that you consider the worst Chris to be a bigger draw than Mario. Wow
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
Again he's the worst Chris. He's not a draw for anybody. Great actors can be draws. That ain't him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Having The Rock in your movie makes it worse.
I've only liked maybe two Rock movies and he still had hair in both of them.
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.
casting The Rock in a Paul Thomas Anderson
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.
We have a local theater here that basically only runs classics, it's pretty great.
This is why I love my local theater, comparatively cheap tickets and the best prints for old classics running all the time.
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.
Nuh-uh. What about the matrix?

Shit. You're right.
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.)
Its funny because when I was young bargain theaters would play old stuff they could get cheap regularly. I think its tougher now that people can see something whenever they like.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I’ll hot take your hot take of that hot take: Cinema popcorn is best the day after a movie when it’s stale
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.
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
except the chocolate popcorn at Seattle's Cinerama SIFF Cinema. That stuff is to die for.
Cinema popcorn is 60% of why I want to go to the movies. My local cinema changed popcorn maker and now it’s not as fresh… I am not as excited to go to the movies anymore :/
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
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.
Do you just watch films about sports?
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.
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.
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.
Warm Bodies is an homage to the Shakespeare Cinematic Universe. Just, with zombies.
How old is the Shakespeare Cinematic Universe? Does it count if it started out live-action?
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.
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.
Even the worst practical effects look better long term than most CGI.




top 92 comments