What cliché’s do you dislike?

[Tower of Iron Will]

Well said, Andared. When Star Wars first came out the "Critics" all panned it, yet most if not all of my friends saw it multiple times. Now, one could argue that the special effects made the movie and I'm not saying that they didn't, but at the same time the basic premise of Star Wars had been told before; ie, young boy receives quest from princess and saves the day by defeating evil. And I still occasionally find myself watching it and LOTR movies and "The Natural." Why? Because after a hard week at work with the threat of being laid off and little money for LEGO, I want to see a story were somebody wins.
-Tower

[Bluesecrets]

Here is my little addition to this thread...and it does in fact bug me...actually more than I thought.

I dislike the historically inaccurate content that has become the norm in films. Yes yes I know...it is a movie/book...it doesn't have to be accurate. And yes yes...it is fantasy, therefore it is made up and can't be historically accurate. But really?

Go back...look at the more recent "castle" like movies. Take for example this little piece of cinematic...um...*sarcasm alert*...gold. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1240982/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_8 Really? If you've seen this movie...you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't...I don't actually recommend it. Sure it is a comedy...but ugh. Or this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306892/?ref_=nv_sr_1 . Another I wouldn't recommend.

Now I'm not saying every single thing needs to be accurate, but come on...you are educating with these movies and stories...whether or not that is your purpose...you are. Go ask a kid...they will naively tell you something completely false about the castle era all because of the wonderful movie/tv/stories that are out there.

This bugs me...

[SSchmidt]

You wouldn't recommend George and the Dragon!?!?
That is one of the single greatest sci-fi originals ever made! They are so good, because they are so bad, literally. The screenwriting, acting, script, everything is so terrible, that the movie becomes watchable! In my college days we would stay up til 3am watching sci-fi originals and laugh our heads off at how terrible they were.

I think these movies should be an exception, simply because they are comedies and do not intend to take themselves seriously. I don't think these movies were made to educate people (at least I sure hope not!). Now, if say, Kingdom of Heaven or Braveheat were like these and still took themselves seriously, I would think we have major problem.

I would imagine the genre of a movie has a lot to do with how one should take its accuracy, or at least that's how I think.

[OverLoad]

I dislike the historically inaccurate content that has become the norm in films. Yes yes I know...it is a movie/book...it doesn't have to be accurate. And yes yes...it is fantasy, therefore it is made up and can't be historically accurate. But really?

The historical inaccuracies in Braveheart actually made me grow to loath the movie. Well, that, and the rampant "Mel Gibson is so great!" attitude present throughout the movie (although, what did I expect? ). So, for films that try to show a historic time period, I do agree that a certain degree of accuracy should be standard.

For fantasy films, no matter what degree they may be, I think that a little leeway could be had. It's clear that such fantasy as Tolkien's works are so beyond our normal history that historical accuracy is off the table, but I feel even for movies that are based on real world legend, such as Excalibur, can be historically inaccurate without diminishing the quality of the film. The amount of story that translates from the pages to the big screen, however, is a different matter entirely.

[Bluesecrets]

ou wouldn't recommend George and the Dragon!?!?
That is one of the single greatest sci-fi originals ever made! They are so good, because they are so bad, literally. The screenwriting, acting, script, everything is so terrible, that the movie becomes watchable! In my college days we would stay up til 3am watching sci-fi originals and laugh our heads off at how terrible they were.

No, I don't recommend it as a film to watch for castle. Not at all. As a film to watch when you are slap happy and goofy...possibly.

But it all comes back to my point about historical inaccuracy. I really really really don't want to discuss this for fear of the discussion that follows, but it is the example. Lets take George and the Dragon...AS IF that princess would ever be allowed to act the way she does. No way, no how. Medieval times women didn't have the right to object to anything or boss anyone around..even if they were the princess. Sure they could use their "female ways" to get things done..but then females have done that since the beginning of time..nothing new there. But an unruly, argumentative, bossy, princess would have been married off a long time before that or put into some convent some where. Females in medieval times even when they were royalty really didn't have the kinds of lives that are shown to us in these movies..etc. And yes there are exceptions, but for bananas sake...they are making up women parts to add to the Hobbit just because there aren't strong female roles in it. Why?!?! It isn't needed. Stop messing with literature..just stop. Ugh..I could go on and on.

So yes, this bugs me..and bugs me a lot. But then...the purpose of a movie is to entertain..not educate, but I think that the entertainment industry needs to realize its power and start getting a little more realistic. And yes if that means I have to see a gong farmer farming the poo. So be it. Don't pretty up a period of time that wasn't exactly pretty most of the time.

*off soap box*

[AK_Brickster]

...they are making up women parts to add to the Hobbit just because there aren't strong female roles in it. Why?!?!

Why? Because Evangeline Lilly as an elf....

[Bluesecrets]

Why? Because Evangeline Lilly as an elf....

Is she the one Legolas is supposed to be crushing on? Because..well..here is hoping she can make him more manly.

[AK_Brickster]

Yeah I assume so.



I mean, I'm pretty sure that he's a lost cause, but if even she can't put a little hair on his chest, I think we can officially write him off once and for all

This begs the question, are attractive female elves a cliche? (see also, Arwen, Galadriel, etc.) Or would that fall more under "stereotype"? lol.

[Andared of Lenfald]

Is she the one Legolas is supposed to be crushing on? Because..well..here is hoping she can make him more manly.

I don't know where the quote was, but according to Peter Jackson, Tauriel will not be a love interest for Legolas. Obviously he could have flat-out lied or changed his mind, but so far, the official statement is that she will not be a love interest.

To be honest, I was originally against the idea of Tauriel being in the movie, but the more I think about it, the less it bothers me. It makes sense for them to have some sort of lead Elf aside from Thranduil for the audience to focus on. While they did include Legolas, on his own, it would be somewhat awkward to give him any dialogue without having a fellow Elf. The fact that they chose a female to play the part doesn't surprise me in the least, due to the heavy amount of PC in Hollywood.
So with that in mind, the choice and addition of Tauriel doesn't bother me, provided that her role is not so great that it dramatically changes the story being told. Obviously we can't speak until the movie is out, but just going off of the trailers, it does not appear that she will have any large, story-altering role. That, and the fact that the outfit they gave her looks so darned awesome, makes it easy for me to accept her as a part of the film. I would much rather they add a few things than take away.

The insults against Legolas, however, confuse me. Where, in either the books or the movies, is Legolas portrayed as feminine? The fact that he has long and blonde hair only means that he looks exactly like all of Tolkien's other elves (male or female) would have looked. It seems random and, to be honest, childish to make comments about his masculinity in such manner.

[Bluesecrets]

The fact that they chose a female to play the part doesn't surprise me in the least, due to the heavy amount of PC in Hollywood.
So with that in mind, the choice and addition of Tauriel doesn't bother me, provided that her role is not so great that it dramatically changes the story being told. Obviously we can't speak until the movie is out, but just going off of the trailers, it does not appear that she will have any large, story-altering role. That, and the fact that the outfit they gave her looks so darned awesome, makes it easy for me to accept her as a part of the film. I would much rather they add a few things than take away.

It does bother me. Why add to something that the author didn't do? Just for the concept of being politically correct? No. I'm sorry but no. These are acts of literature that millions adore. You can't just go about adding/deleting/changing characters just to make sure that females are happy. Some of us females are happy exactly as the stories are...without any need for some more female characters.

The insults against Legolas, however, confuse me. Where, in either the books or the movies, is Legolas portrayed as feminine? The fact that he has long and blonde hair only means that he looks exactly like all of Tolkien's other elves (male or female) would have looked. It seems random and, to be honest, childish to make comments about his masculinity in such manner.

Inside joke...between AK_Brickster and a few others.

[Tower of Iron Will]

I will admit, the first time I saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail I wasn't that amused, but then saw it years later and every time since then die laughing from it. The first time I saw it I was looking for something Castle out of it, but that's missing the whole point of the movie. The point of the movie is comedy, pure and simple. So, when I see a movie like Your Highness I don't go expecting great "Castle" and am not let down because of it.

For Braveheart, I'm not so much looking for text book accuracy as much as a good story. I'm actually glad someone like Mel Gibson got involved because of the money that was brought to the film just because of his status at the time (pre-scandals). I think the push to be historically accurate lessens the creative power, not everyone or every movie maker has the passion to be perfect. Plus, when you consider that historical viewpoints depend on the personal bias of the recorder/victor/winner, accuracy may not be the best.
-Tower

[AK_Brickster]

It does bother me. Why add to something that the author didn't do?

Well, they stretched a 300 page book into three movies, so they had to supplement the content a little, I'm guessing. And really, the book does mention "other elves", so I'd consider this to be further expanding on existing unnamed characters in the book for the sake of filling out the story. There is also going to be a big portion of the 2nd film regarding Gandalf's confrontation with the "necromancer", which is mentioned as little more than a side-errand in the book. I thoroughly enjoy the movies, so I'm glad that they made it into a trilogy, if only so I can have additional hours of viewing enjoyment. If that means expanding the cast of characters a wee bit, I don't think that's so terrible.

But, I digress. Perhaps this belongs in a different discussion.