Movies That Should Have Never Been Made..

[The Parkus Empire]

300

There, I said it. >_<

I use to feel the same way, but I now believe that 300 is one of the best bad movies ever made.

[Delator]

...if the movie was that far over your head, go read the book.

If the movie is halfway well made, you should NOT have to read the book to understand it.

You don't have to read the book...but clearly some horses have to be led to water.

[The Observer Clan]

oh and if we want quotes, hows this one from Arthur C. Clarke: "If you understand 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we have answered."

so more or less, they intentionally made a slip-shot and bullshit story that should be impossible to understand, and if you supposedly do, you are in fact calling them failures

For crying out loud...

Just because a movie raises more questions than it answers does not make it impossible to understand.

THEY. DON'Y. WANT. YOU. TO. UNDERSTAND.

unless you are willing to call them failures, you can not completely understand the movie

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

300

There, I said it. >_<

I use to feel the same way, but I now believe that 300 is one of the best bad movies ever made.

I guess, to be honest, at least I can take a snack break when I see another slo-mo fight scene start.

[Norstal]

Because you think you have the rights to make moving pictures a movie and not a movie. Even an experimental movie is still a movie.


That sentence semantically makes no sense.

the definitions of words are always subject to change... the common IDEA of what you expect to go see when you walk into a movie, A PLOT, CHARACTERS, DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE CHARACTERS, COHERENCE, are not present

Yes, and who changed the definition?

Seems like you're the only one trying to change this.

because it was shot with a camra, it is by definition a film, but the qualities of such do not make it an acceptable film to watch

Ok? See, it's still subjective. "This film sucks, therefore it's not a movie" is not a valid argument.

you happy with this explanation or should i use smaller words as to not have it go over your head considering this is the 4th fucking time i explained this

Maybe you should fix your grammar before trying to use English words.

[Dizyntk]

You don't have to read the book...but clearly some horses have to be led to water

My point is that 2001 was so poorly made that you almost have to read the book to understand it. It was dull, lacked plot development and the characters might as well have been cardboard cutouts for all the movie made you care about them.

[Delator]

For crying out loud...

Just because a movie raises more questions than it answers does not make it impossible to understand.

THEY. DON'Y. WANT. YOU. TO. UNDERSTAND.

Well certainly Clarke didn't...he did write three sequel books that hash it all out quite well, after all.

You can't sell books if you spoil 'em before you write 'em.

unless you are willing to call them failures, you can not completely understand the movie

As soon as you learn the difference between "impossible to understand" and "completely understand", I might be able to take your criticism seriously. Not before.

[Wiztopia]

You don't have to read the book...but clearly some horses have to be led to water

My point is that 2001 was so poorly made that you almost have to read the book to understand it. It was dull, lacked plot development and the characters might as well have been cardboard cutouts for all the movie made you care about them.

You should be reading the books that are made into movies anyway. There is no such thing as original source being worse than its counterpart.

[The Observer Clan]

the definitions of words are always subject to change... the common IDEA of what you expect to go see when you walk into a movie, A PLOT, CHARACTERS, DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE CHARACTERS, COHERENCE, are not present

Yes, and who changed the definition?

Seems like you're the only one trying to change this.

because it was shot with a camra, it is by definition a film, but the qualities of such do not make it an acceptable film to watch

Ok? See, it's still subjective. "This film sucks, therefore it's not a movie" is not a valid argument.

you happy with this explanation or should i use smaller words as to not have it go over your head considering this is the 4th fucking time i explained this

Maybe you should fix your grammar before trying to use English words.

fuck it, trying to explain anything to you which can't be signed in triplicate is like taking down a brick wall with a fucking toffee hammer.

why do i need one person, what is so important about the first person who ever thought of this?

i know plenty of people who share this opinion with me, yet just because you just happen not to i am suddenly wrong?

just because you see a dictionary doesn't mean it's accurate. i looked up the word Douche once in the dictionary as ordered by a teacher and found it to be a stream of either air or water, yet it has only ever been used to describe some schmuck or an asshole

though i do love how you are starting to just go after my limited grasp of English when you have no retort, i always found that route particularly funny

[Dizyntk]

My point is that 2001 was so poorly made that you almost have to read the book to understand it. It was dull, lacked plot development and the characters might as well have been cardboard cutouts for all the movie made you care about them.

You should be reading the books that are made into movies anyway. There is no such thing as original source being worse than its counterpart.

Oh, I agree. But the point of this thread is movies, bad movies. And 2001 was an atrocious movie. The only thing that you understand in that movie is that the computer is schizo and homicidal. You could have told that much just by watching 15 minutes of the film. The other 126 minutes were pointless.

[Norstal]

Yes, and who changed the definition?

Seems like you're the only one trying to change this.


Ok? See, it's still subjective. "This film sucks, therefore it's not a movie" is not a valid argument.


Maybe you should fix your grammar before trying to use English words.

fuck it, trying to explain anything to you which can't be signed in triplicate is like taking down a brick wall with a fucking toffee hammer.

I understand your argument well. It's a bad movie (to you) so you want it not to be considered a movie.

Which is full of fallacies I can't even count.

why do i need one person, what is so important about the first person who ever thought of this?

Because you don't have the authority to redefine words.

i know plenty of people who share this opinion with me, yet just because you just happen not to i am suddenly wrong?

Yes. Bandwagon. If they all think jumping off the cliffs without harnesses is safe, would you do it?

just because you see a dictionary doesn't mean it's accurate. i looked up the word Douche once in the dictionary as ordered by a teacher and found it to be a stream of either air or water, yet it has only ever been used to describe some schmuck or an asshole

Your ignorance is astounding. Douche is a device that does that.

though i do love how you are starting to just go after my limited grasp of English when you have no retort, i always found that route particularly funny

My retort is full of valid, non-fallacious arguments. I suggest you read them again if you don't understand.

[Wiztopia]

Yes, and who changed the definition?

Seems like you're the only one trying to change this.


Ok? See, it's still subjective. "This film sucks, therefore it's not a movie" is not a valid argument.


Maybe you should fix your grammar before trying to use English words.

fuck it, trying to explain anything to you which can't be signed in triplicate is like taking down a brick wall with a fucking toffee hammer.

why do i need one person, what is so important about the first person who ever thought of this?

i know plenty of people who share this opinion with me, yet just because you just happen not to i am suddenly wrong?

just because you see a dictionary doesn't mean it's accurate. i looked up the word Douche once in the dictionary as ordered by a teacher and found it to be a stream of either air or water, yet it has only ever been used to describe some schmuck or an asshole

though i do love how you are starting to just go after my limited grasp of English when you have no retort, i always found that route particularly funny

You are wrong because your are making shit up. That is not a "modern" definition.

You should be reading the books that are made into movies anyway. There is no such thing as original source being worse than its counterpart.

Oh, I agree. But the point of this thread is movies, bad movies. And 2001 was an atrocious movie. The only thing that you understand in that movie is that the computer is schizo and homicidal. You could have told that much just by watching 15 minutes of the film. The other 126 minutes were pointless.

HAL just needed some penis in his USB port.

[The Observer Clan]

THEY. DON'Y. WANT. YOU. TO. UNDERSTAND.

Well certainly Clarke didn't...he did write three sequel books that hash it all out quite well, after all.

You can't sell books if you spoil 'em before you write 'em.

unless you are willing to call them failures, you can not completely understand the movie

As soon as you learn the difference between "impossible to understand" and "completely understand", I might be able to take your criticism seriously. Not before.

what is with you people being so fucking blind... i perfectly understand the diffidence, but why the fuck, would you ever go into an endeavor, only to come away with only a vague understanding rather than a complete one?

i understand the importance of reading but the thing you seem to be describing is shameless self promoting where the other writer was more or less saying "ah ha! want to know where i was going with this nothing? well you better lay down a few extra bucks because i got a few books..."

[Vigilantes And Knights]

Trolls 2 was bad, but at least it has the epic "Oh my GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDD" in it.

But THE worst film ever made was:

Westender.

Only redeeming thing was it had good cinematographry. But plot is gone to shit. Hell, there is no plot! There's a premise, which involves him gambling away a ring which belonged to a girl he didn't give a damn about. Then a full hour of the main character roaming the desert finding random objects like a piece of wood or a rock and staring at each one for 2 minutes like it had some sort of meaning. Finally, he runs into these bandits holding a woman and child hostage. Random guy comes out and gives main guy a sword, and gets himself killed by charging into the bandits. After the battle, main guy mysteriously finds his way into the forest and enters a random military camp for knights. He goes into the HQ full of these weirdos and says the only line in the movie..."I'm back."

Movie length is 1 hr 10 min. if I remember right.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

bt dubz, 30 Minutes or Less wasn't that great of a fillum.

Seriously, the "Man, a strip club is a great place to meet and discuss business!" line got old when The Goods came out.

[Aurorum Veritas]

Cable Guy and The Truman Show- BOTH movies should have stayed in the mind of whoever had the ideas of them.

o.O

Jim Carrey's rendition of "Somebody To Love"...

Epic win.

[Dizyntk]

Oh here is one I watched once, Burial Ground. You have heard of spaghetti westerns? Well this my friends was, I kid you not, a spaghetti horror film. And it was horrorable to watch. It is basically a zombie film where everybody gets eaten. Done before right? But that is all that basically happens in this movie. Oh there is some weird half way reference to some incestuous feelings between 2 of the characters, for about 10 minutes before they get eaten. Horrible, horrible, horrible film. Only redeeming quality was what had to be the best use of what I believe were pig guts for the scenes where the people were getting eaten.

[Norstal]

Birth of a Nation. Though, it's so bad it's funny.

[Munathanura]

I enjoyed 2001.

*hides for fear of his life*

As for movies that should never have been made, I'm going to go with those horrible movies that tried to parody every popular movie/trend from the year before. The concept isn't bad, but it's not done in an intelligent or interesting way IMHO.

[Norstal]

I enjoyed 2001.

*hides for fear of his life*

As for movies that should never have been made, I'm going to go with those horrible movies that tried to parody every popular movie/trend from the year before. The concept isn't bad, but it's not done in an intelligent or interesting way IMHO.

Eh, I thought those kind of movies are dead.

[The Observer Clan]

you know what, fuck it, i give up, apparently explaining anything to people so this deep entrenched was more a waste of my patience then anything and only served to make my self look stupid because i am acting impulsively rather then waiting a few minutes to think of the best possible response

i give up arguing this stupid fucking argument because at the end of the day, i honestly don't give a shit, you keep watching your boring as fuck 'film', if you need me, i'll be watching my guilty pleasure Tinto Brass's Caligula, good night and have a pleasant tomorrow

[Dizyntk]

Eh, I thought those kind of movies are dead.

We can only hope.

[Norstal]

Eh, I thought those kind of movies are dead.

We can only hope.

Aw what the hell. How did they keep getting the funds to do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bigges ... ll_Time_3D

Kinda makes you wonder. If they make a bad parody on bad movies, would it be so bad that it destroys the universe?

[Munathanura]

I enjoyed 2001.

*hides for fear of his life*

As for movies that should never have been made, I'm going to go with those horrible movies that tried to parody every popular movie/trend from the year before. The concept isn't bad, but it's not done in an intelligent or interesting way IMHO.

Eh, I thought those kind of movies are dead.

Like Dizyntk, I hope they are, but they should never have been made in the first place.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

We can only hope.

Aw what the hell. How did they keep getting the funds to do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bigges ... ll_Time_3D

Kinda makes you wonder. If they make a bad parody on bad movies, would it be so bad that it destroys the universe?

Loving the rave reviews from RottenTomatoes.