Fletch. I honestly think that one scene where Fletch lights up is the only truly false note in that film, but it’s worse than if the conductor farted during a quiet stretch of Beethoven’s Ninth. Absolutely awful, and I still have no idea why it’s in there. They could have had him light up at literally any other scene in the film, and it would have worked.
Gratuitous product placement in general really takes you out of a movie. I appreciate that they’re getting paid big bucks for the placements and that helps make the movie, but product placement can be done well; there’s a scene in “Galaxy Quest” when a hung over Tim Allen is given a Coke, and later when asked if he needs anything says “a cup holder and a couple of Advils.” Two product placements and they actually fit the scenes and don’t distract you. It’s not that hard to show a character using a name brand of some sort, and you can even make it clever, like the “Pepsi Free” gag in “Back To The Future.” But when it’s just sort of dropped in front of the audience like a big steaming turd, you find yourself no longer in the movie’s world.
This has become a thread about things that just generally we hate about movies but, really, take you out of the world of the movie is the worst thing they can do. It doesn’t matter what kind of movie it is - could be Goodfellas, Jurassic Park, The 400 Blows, Citizen Kane, or Galaxy Quest - the movie only really succeeds if it gets you involved in its little world and keeps you there. When a product placement is so clumsy that you’re like “Oh, look, the product placement,” that’s a big failure on the part of the movie.
Surprised this hasn’t been mentioned yet as of page 3, but characters that don’t watch the road while they’re driving. The driver looks over at the passenger, says something, waits for passenger’s reaction, then looks back at the road. Meanwhile, 10 or so seconds have elapsed. People don’t do that while they’re really driving.
The whole time I’m thinking “watchtheroad watchtheroad watchtheroad watchtheroad…” It’s especially vexing during a good movie that I’ve thus far been sucked into, because once that happens, I’m out. They’re actors sitting in a prop car which is sitting on a trailer, or being towed by a truck driven by a PA or something.
Hate it, hate it, hate it.
The actual humans in the first Toy Story are horrible and really take me out of the movie. I don’t know why they had to show human faces at all; I believe the children could easily have been shown from the torso down like in the second Toy Story. (Think of Jesse’s song “When She Loved Me” – I don’t think the child’s face is shown at all in that sequence.) Perhaps after the first Toy Story the decision was made to avoid human characters?
I also thought the bird was terrible in A Bug’s Life, but the insects were fine.
Clothahump’s Law: Any movie that is promoted more than six months in advance of opening will suck. Any movie that is promoted more than a year in advance of opening will suck like a Hoover on steroids.
So far the Law is operating with 100% accuracy.
Well said! Top of the list.
Further amens to what RickJay just said.
And, Rigamarole, my keywords in that bitch are pretending to be elsewhere. I realize that if we eradicated SoCal from the map that movies as we know them would cease to be. But it’s the geographical pretending that I’m taken out of movies by. When it’s supposed to be Louisiana, or Montana, or Massachusetts exteriors and we see palms and mesquite and barren hillsides passing for those places, I lose concentration long enough to mutter under my breath, “bullshit.”
Oh Jesus YES! I find myself waiting for the inevitable car crash (because that’s what they’re setting up, right?) and then find myself anti-climaxing that it doesn’t happen. By all means have conversations in the car but can you not do it like a normal person would and have them watching the road whilst they’re doing it?
You’re totally on the money on this one. Any movie that is actually good doesn’t need to be promoted like this.
The first time I noticed it was in “Breaking Away”. There’s a brief scene where the male lead attempts to light the female leads cigarette. The lighter flares up and startles the FL. The whole thing was inserted to show the geeky un-slickness of the guys initial attempts to woo the girl. But nothing earlier or after suggests the girl is a smoker or explains why the bicycle racer athlete has a lighter. I have not seen the movie in 10-15 years so I may be misremembering some details .
On the other hand, using supposedly “generic” products rather than actual brands is just as bad. The scream “we didn’t want to do product placement so we have this mock product that just doesn’t look right”, especially if it is something liek a beer can that just says “Beer” on it.
I disagree. I first saw Watchmen previews in the summer of 2007.
The same goes for characters knitting. Often, the actor is just wrapping yarn around a needle, or moving the needles around at random. Plus, it’s very simple to learn how to knit back and forth, and a lot of actors already know how, it’s a popular Hollywood thing. If the knitting isn’t important, why have them pretend to knit? Holding some knitting would be more convincing.
That, and when they make something over the course of a few hours that would, in reality, take even a really fast knitter weeks to complete.
Oversized action. Why can’t a car ever flip without a mushroom cloud of fire? Why can’t a guy ever get knocked out by his third kick in the head? Why can’t a bomb, just once, be defused with 44 seconds remaining, or maybe even six hours? The supposed tension caused by these cliches creates the exact opposite: perfect predictability.
Unless it’s Repo Man. The fact that everything was generic was hilarious.
Except my friend Bob, and if you think it’s nerve-wracking watching it from the theater, try watching it from the passenger seat of the car.
Just “smokers”. Just about every puff is bought and paid for by Big Tobacco.
I can add another “big stars” brought in for voices in animated pics, which then “star” so-and-so.:rolleyes:
The flipside of the coin: Non-smoking.
Pearl Harbor, a perfect example. No one in that movie smoked.
It was 1941, ferchrissakes, everybody smoked. Emphysema patients with one cancer-ridden lung left smoked.
The only thing worse is films with “cigarette” in the freaking title. There was a whole plague of them - 200 Cigarettes, Coffee and Cigarettes, Romance & Cigarettes…man, do I hate smoking. They are my Six-Fingered Man “You killed my Father, prepare to die!”
I liked Titanic, but Cameron had both lead characters smoke and his excuse totally bought into the marketing - “I wanted to show that they were rebels”. Argh! Smokers aren’t “rebels”, they are sheep manipulated into doing something stupid and self-destructive by either their peers or a huge marketing machine.
Everyone crapped and pissed, yet they somehow manage to leave those out also.
His excuse really was “Their check cleared”.:rolleyes:
I don’t know if anyone’s said this one yet, but…
all the information is in this person’s computer. But I don’t have their password.
first try — no? Damn!
second try — no? Damn!
Ah hah! here’s something readily associated with them and clearly visible from their desk, with no numbers or reversing of letters or anything.
I’m in!