What do you hatre most about modern films?

Avatar Image
Bert | 01:41 Sun 28th Jan 2007 | Film
9 Answers
What are the three things you hate most about modern films?

1. The way the "opening" credits are still being shown half-way through the film. In the "good old days", you had the title of the film, then "starring � the two or three most famous actors" then maybe two or three more credits for the producer and director. Then the film began; and when it ended you had about two minutes of credits for all the other actors and a few significant people such as the costume designer, make-up artist etc. Now you have credits that roll on through the first half of the film, and at the end you have about ten minutes of credits telling you who was the best friend of the assistant carpenter's girlfriend's cousin. And what firm supplied the meals!!!

2. The way the director always wants two bites of the cherry. The first of the opening credits reads "An Alan Smithee Film". What does that mean? Nobody else had anything to do with it? No, it means that Alan Smithee was the director. This is confirmed about twenty minutes later, when the last credit reads "Directed by Alan Smithee". How big-headed is this?

3. The way minor players in the film put initials after their names as if they were academic qualifications or honours. "Casting by Emma Nidiot CSA". I'm guessing that CSA stands for Casting Society of America. I bet you pay $100 and you are CSA. Who cares if you have paid your subscription to the CSA? And there are a couple of others that annoy me � the cameraman is usually ASA or something � I forget the rest. Grrrr!!!


1 to 9 of 9rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Bert. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I remember Michael Winner arguing passionately against the proposal to delete closing credits from films when shown on TV - he said that for many of the cew, it was their 'shop window' where other directors / producers who liked their work could check a name.

I hate lousy continuity - someone is saoking wet in one scene, and dry, buffed and styled in the next.

I also hate really fast choppy editing - it give me a headache!

And sub-normal intelligence plot lines - tell me a story, I'll follow it, I'm a grown-up!
1) Fast edit and unsteady camera work simply to create and effect but which does not add to the quality of the film. eg low budget productions and arty-farty approaches
2) Films that are shot because 'I am the actor, look at me' eg MI 2
3) Movies that are made only because the first one was such a big hit. eg Matrix was a fantastic concept but the rest of the series was questionable (personal opinion), also applies for Pirates of the Caribbean, and to a certain extent Die Hard
4) Movies which have the plot altered by editing to fit the time available, check out Spy game and the removed scenes which I believe add to the understanding of the original plot.
5) Remakes which do not hit the mark, which are not remakes but simply called such to get the attention, eg the Italian Job which was actually a good movie in itself but suffered by being associated with the original (and personally I believe the original to be the only true 'Italian Job'). Also Lady killers where Tom Hanks and the cast are just not up to the Peter Sellars original (dont get me wrong here, I am an avid Hanks fan)

I know you asked for only three, but as a big movie fan, these five above are my pet hates.

Like andy I can't stand fast cuts/editing.
Fight scenes are just a blur of fists, fast moving camerawork and rapid cuts. It's impossible to make anything out.

That bloke with the deep croaky voice that does EVERY SINGLE [email protected]@KING TRAILER voiceover. I don't like him.

Most of all I can't stand how the movie studios bleat on about how piracy is killing the industry. Never mind that they're obsessed with churning out big budget soulless event movies just so they can make as much money as possbile off the back of what is little more than a 2 hour long advert for toys, games and DVDs. We're always hearing how movie attendances are down, well what do the expect considering the cost of tickets and cinema popcorn nowadays?
I'd agree about remakes as well.
Proves Hollywood just doesn't give a sh1t about the art and are only in it for the money. Just look at all the TV to movie remakes. They take a successful TV show and hope that the success and the fans will follow it to the big screen without putting any actual effort into producing something worthwhile.

Just thought of another - Uwe Boll and Paul W.S. Anderson. This pair of cinematic 'never has beens' are behind the vast majority of videogame to celluloid failures. God knows who keeps funding these talent free directors. They need to be put out of our misery.
1. Trailers that give away too much of the plot or contain the ONLY good bits of the film.

2. Adam Sandler.

3. Adam Sandler.
I hate when you get those films so up themselves they've got such convuluted storylines you need to watch it 100 times to work it out. I hate the new thing with fuzzy camera angles - ie Nigella Bites - but in a film it's awful.

I hate when you get flashbacks right through a movie and you can't keep up with if this in now or back then, and whoi all the characters are.

Split screens that remain for the qwhole film - I saw one film where the split screen was there throughout and it was two totally different stories going on in each half of screen - if you could have switched the sound off in one half you could have watched a half ast a time - but instead it just robbed you of the power to think.

I'm not against all films which use falshbacks - just in moderation, and the same with the alteranate life.

I did enjoy Sliding Doors when it came out and have enjoyed it watching it recently on Film 4. I also like the compexity of Back to the Future 2 when it came out as that was new thinking of someone seeing themselves in a different time. I like Sci-Fi so enjoyed Timecop too - it used a little of this at the end
Modern films in general, they are just a bore.

The Actors mutter their words too much, in the most you cannot understand what they have said.

Quite a number of scenes are too dark you cannot see what's happening.

All those credits, just a waste of time you cannot read them they roll them too fast, and they are generally in red on a black background, so you can't read them anyway.

American 'gross-out' movies and Chick Flicks (or films obviously made for a particular demographic)
Comic Book Movies (with a couple of exceptions)
Films with 200+ Swear words (Guy Richie, Tarantino etc)
How books are made into films within months of publication
Agree with much of the above answers but especially:

the titles/credits � older films had the titles over within one minute and cast list at end similarly over within a minute

remakes � why do they always insist on remaking good films? The remake is rarely as good as the original. Why don't they look for some films that were rubbish the first time, and try to improve?

Filming a book/play and altering it too much. I accept that some things sometimes have to be altered because it would be impossible to film them, but what I really really hate is when they alter the location (setting) and the period of the original. Older films did not see the need to do this so much. So what has changed?

Any film which relies on special effects for its impact. They should spend the money on good writers.

And, on special effects, lack of realism. We have all seen (sadly) real explosions on news broadcasts, and there is never the fireball which you always get in movies (unless the (real) explosion was in an oil dump).

1 to 9 of 9rss feed

Do you know the answer?

What do you hatre most about modern films?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.