The entire film Pretty Woman from the actors to the plot. I have seen Friday The 13th films that were more believable.
I sometimes work as a homeless extra in tv/movies. Security often tries to shoo me away from catering and crafty. I tell them, "Look at the teeth."
For the most part, how they portray LGBT characters, if they get portrayed at all. And when they do, 99.9% of the time they're portrayed by a straight actor.
I guess the thing I find the most irritating, is the "Cat & Mouse" segment of a film. Lots of 'em have one, and it's usually dragged out and uncomfortably tense. It's been done well, like in The French Connection when Doyle is following Charnier, but in that film it's witty and entertaining. Friedkin did a great car chase in that film too, but these are easy things to do badly, and seem to be inserted into lots of films as a matter of course, like it's just expected or something. Watching one person toying with another can be interesting the first time you see a film, I suppose. Often when I'm watching it again it's just the part of the film that I have to endure to get to the end.
That's because a lot of people aren't religious any more, especially in Europe. I know that I don't want anything religious to do with my death.
Another annoyance is the "Lengthy Explanation". Best way I can put it, is that there's a complicated issue. Then there's usually one character inserted into the scene who understands little or nothing about it, and so for those who might not get it, or who haven't been following the plot, things get explained, usually for a second time, in simple, easy-to-digest terms. Paddy Chayefsky skillfully avoided doing exactly that in Network, and it gave the film a huge advantage. He simply used real television production terminology, expecting the audience would feel the realism, and it worked beautifully.
Well, that's simply a matter of statistics. There's only so many LBGT actors and actresses compared to the total amount of actors and actresses out there to play the roles. I'm sure there are LBGT actors and actresses who wouldn't appreciate being typecast in that role in films. But that does bring up an interesting question, should LBGT roles be primarily portrayed by LBGT actors and actresses or should that be left up to the director and producer to choose an actor or actress whose the best fit for the role, regardless if they are LBGT in real life or not.
I don't think they have to hire murderers to play murderers, real politicians to play politicians, blind actors to play blind people, or somebody with a broken arm to play somebody with a broken arm. Great actors can play any part. By that token, you could say if a gay actor is up for a part, he or she should be prevented from playing a straight character. I'm against that, too. I think they should simply hire the best actor available for a given part. Period.
Here's yet another one, which I mentioned in another thread as well. Adapting novels and short stories without staying true to the written work.
Turning European films into American movies when the original is already perfect but just requires an attention span longer than that of a puppy. Case in point, 'Headhunters', a terrific Norwegian film which I believe Mark Wahlberg has bought the rights to. The trailer is NSFW. Americanizing this movie would not improve it.
And then there are biopics. I actually like some of those, but they all feature dialog. Lots of dialog. Who knows who really said what to whom? Or how it was said or intended? Do they just make it up?
People who just close their laptop every time they're done. Or close someone else's laptop when they want to impose face time.
I agree. But I think that perhaps the previous post was trying to point out that Hollywood's history is having straight actors act in an exaggerated, flamboyant, feminine fashion when playing a gay man. Fortunately this isn't very common any longer, but it used to be that almost all gay male characters were "queens."
Bathrooms don't exist unless in a comedy, or if they do in a drama, someone is in hiding and is in there to discuss 'how to get out of this situation'. Also I'm sick of hearing people say 'I got this', however saying it seems to mean you can do incredible stuff, so maybe I ought to try it.
All the cars are perfectly clean far too often.....no bird crap on any of them. And stupid sound effects whenever a punch is landed.
Text messages are (a) usually written in full words and sentences (no text speak) and (b) the sender often signs they name. So where as you or I would say 'Need 2 talk. C u @ 8', in a movie it's more likely to be 'We need to talk. See you at 8 o'clock - Thom'.
I write text messages in full words and sentences, and so do my friends with whom I communicate via that method. I fully appreciate that this places us in a minority, but we can't be the only ones who do it.
It's a different world now. I think it's fair to say that everyone in modern society now -- especially Hollywood -- is keenly aware that there are many different personality types among gay people. Some are flamboyant; I'm reminded of the character Emmett from Queer as Folk, who said "some of us have flames that burn brighter than others." But some are not. I think Will Truman's character on Will & Grace proved you could have a fairly restrained performance as a gay man and make it work, even for comedy. Having said that, I'm not a fan of the way gay people are portrayed on Modern Family, and part of it is because they cater to a lot of stereotypes and cheap laughs. I concede that there's an audience for this stuff, so people like the show. But it's something I think Hollywood did not get right in that show.
Which was a remain of The Seven Samuri. Remakes are easy because they are a better bet--sell a familiar story and audiences will come because they don't always like something completely new. Think of those folks that go to the same restaurant all the time. The other point that seems to be missed all the time is that we've had remakes for centuries. When you put on an old play aren't you remaking it for a new generation? The difference is that we can record it and it lives on.
