There are certain movie genres or themes that will always suck. Some will suck because they just aren’t interesting subject matter. Some will suck because they only appeal to a small demographic. Others still will suck because they appeal to nerds who will never find them good enough:
Movies about Mars - For some reason, with the exception of Total Recall, movies about the Red Planet tend to be lame - Ghosts of Mars, Red Planet, Mission to Mars, etc, etc. Probably because at the end of the day, it’s basically a bunch of actors walking around Death Valley shot with a red lens filter.
Movies about Satan - End of Days, Lost Souls, those stupid Omen films. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was sucking at the box office.
Movies about Christianity - Problem is that a messiah that preaches so much love doesn’t leave room for a lot of kicking ass. That and Evangelical Christians are annoying.
Epic scale sci-fi or fantasy films - Narnia, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Star Wars sequals. No movie can ever live up to the hype or stand up to the scrutiny of a nerdly fan base who’s benchmark is the wonder of Star Wars seen through the eyes of a six year old.
Epic adventure films - Sahara, The Mummy. All will inevitably be compared to Raiders of the Lost Arc.
Alien running amok movies - Mostly the fare of the sci-fi channel at 2:00am, all will inevitably be compared to Alien/Aliens.
Well, I think Robinson Crusoe on Mars was a pretty respectable entry in the Mars film sweepstakes. One of the better efforts of the 1960s, overall.
And what’s Lord of the Rings if not Epic Scale Fantasy – arguably the epitome of Epic Scale Fantasy?
Sahara and MUmmy were both done much more heavily tongue-in-cheek that Raiders. And how can you not note that, long before Raiders, epic adventure flicks were compared to Bond films. Bond’s fortunes have been fluctuating, but I think the last one was among the best, on not really comparable to the Indiana Jones films.
I rather like the Devils Advocate, mostly to watch Pacino chew the scenery(in a good way).
Are you counting Dogma?
Okay, you lost me here. Are you saying such films always suck or there’s a fan base that won’t accept anything less then perfection?
It’s hard to argue that Lord of the Rings sucks, judging from the mainstream enjoyment of the movie and crtical reaction, not to mention box office. Sure, there’s a couple fanboys who are going to whine and gash over Tom Bombadil not being in it, and the movies weren’t perfect(the ending in the last one being a bit of a problem), but I don’t think “Sucked” is the appropriate word.
Oh, yeah – “Alien run amok” is a genre I dislike simply becauase it is too cliche and done to death. But it’s still possible to do it with style and wit. Take a look at the underappreciated The Hidden. And what the hell is The Terminator and its sequels but another example of this. I love both versions of The Thing, as well.
The OP doesn’t really make a lot of sense. I mean, epic fantasy/sci-fi will always suck because some fanboys will always complain about it? Huh? Isn’t that more about the fanbase sucking, and not the movie? And how did Lord of the Rings get in there? The reaction to the movies, with a few exceptions, was overwhelmingly positive. Folks loved those movies, and they were gigantic hits. The last two categories are the most bewildering. Those sorts of movies will always suck because they’ll be compared to older, better movies? So, you’re saying that if a movie isn’t the absolute pinnacle of excellence within its genre, then it must suck? There’s absolutely no middle ground?
Agree totally. It doesn’t help that the Sci-fi channel keeps running bad ones all the fricken time…except when they’re running killer bugs/snake/dino/snake/sloth movies.
The problem I have with the OP is that I think any movie done well has the potential to change your mind about a particular genre. It is difficult to write off whole genres as always “sucking” because there is usually a lot of variation within the subject matter. Lots of people are just hostile to the idea of watching one of “those” films… whatever it is. Chick flicks. Foreign movies. Heist films. Blaxploitation.
That said, the one American subgenre I think is extremely difficult to do well are Movies Based On Television Series, especially Those From A Generation Ago, and Especially Those With An All-New Cast. STAR TREK was a successful transition. STARSKY AND HUTCH and DUKES OF HAZZARD were not. Bad scripts, actors cast for their resemblance to the characters, limited nostalgic appeal. These things typically run the gamut of quality from Bad to Sad. I’m particularly annoyed with the subgenre REVERSE Ethnic Version 2.0, where you have an remade TV show, only its the black version, i.e., THE HONEYMOONERS. I’m usually willing to try color-blind casting, but gimme a break. (Coming soon, with Roseanne in the Nell Carter role.)
Oh and I don’t include Dogma. I meant serious Christianity films. Although in all fairness, I was thinking of those Left Behind movies, PotC, which I haven’t actually seen. So maybe they should be excluded.
Any movie subject can be done well or poorly. I don’t know of any genre that will always suck.
Strike that: movies made from video games will always suck. It’s next to impossible to turn them into a coherent story. At best, you get decent eye candy like Tomb Raider, but that’s probably the best they can aspire to.
Don’t forget teen comedy movies. Sure we laugh on first glance but then teh cold light of day hits them and they age… and they never age well. Teen Flicks generally suck.
The Disaster genre, with topics such as:
Earthquakes
Volcanos
Plane Hijackings
Tidal Waves
Skyscraper Firestaking the starring role over a bunch of washed up has-been actors.
And Amateur Porn films:
<Richard Bey> "Where Do They Find These People???
</Richard Bey>
