# Cinema's Unlikable Movie Characters?



## BAYLOR (Feb 24, 2017)

Actually, It should Cinemas Most Unlikable Movie characters . Which Characters and what makes them so objectionable?


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 27, 2017)

Jar Jar Binks


----------



## Lucien21 (Feb 27, 2017)

Maybe Jar Jar is just Messa-Understood.


----------



## HanaBi (Feb 27, 2017)

Those bloody irritating Ewok things!!

Anything starring Chris Tucker - especially that OTT character from The Fifth Element


----------



## Toby Frost (Mar 2, 2017)

Are we talking about characters who should be likeable and are annoying? If so, I'd go for Jar Jar Binks and River Tam.

For sheer unpleasantness, I'd choose one of cinema's least likeable characters ever: Szell from _Marathon Man_.


----------



## HanaBi (Mar 2, 2017)

Orlando "Legolas" Bloom!

Irritating beyond belief (especially that bloody surf-boarding scene!), and about as wooden as Fangorn Forest!


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 4, 2017)

Lucien21 said:


> Maybe Jar Jar is just Messa-Understood.



He is the most vile charter in the whole star Wars universe and he isn't even really a villain.


----------



## RX-79G (Mar 4, 2017)

Deana Troi.

"Captain, I'm sensing aggression from the well armed alien that is yelling at us."


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 4, 2017)

Damn it, both Jar Jar and Troi already named.

RX, that was always great. "Death to humans! I will feast upon your children!"

"Captain, I'm sensing... hostility."


----------



## HanaBi (Mar 4, 2017)

RX-79G said:


> Deana Troi.
> 
> "Captain, I'm sensing aggression from the well armed alien that is yelling at us."




... and speaking of ST:NG, I would have to add Wesley Crusher to my list of "irritating gits that should have been zapped right from the off!"

and add to that, Joffrey Baratheon, from GoT !

(I realise these two characters are from TV rather than cinema; but they're still incredibly irritating)


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 3, 2019)

* St Elmos Fire *1985 . All the characters in that  film were a bunch nasty, spoiled, self-centered , narcissistic  jerks.


----------



## Vince W (Jun 14, 2019)

Anakin Skywalker. The helmet helped him immensely.
Owen Grady and Claire Dearing from Jurassic World. It would have been a mercy (on us) if they'd been eaten in the first ten minutes.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 14, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> * St Elmos Fire *1985 . All the characters in that  film were a bunch nasty, spoiled, self-centered , narcissistic  jerks.


Noooo, I think of St Elmos Fire as a really big 80s music video. Just full of cr*p. They made no sense. It made no sense. But then did most of the 80s???? No! Of course it didn't. (I should know, I was there for all of it as a child/teenager/young man )

Unlikeable characters from movies. Easy. The childcatcher from Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang. Still makes me shiver and nauseous when I see someone that is close to his likeness. Also get a similar vibe from the Munsters (it was played in the UK in the late 70s. Probably because it was dirt cheap)...however not that the characters were bad. Yet, they somehow thinking about that show, even now, makes me barf at 'peeled boiled potatoes', that I think were there in the show somewhere. Or might have been my Sunday dinner at the time.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 15, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> Noooo, I think of St Elmos Fire as a really big 80s music video. Just full of cr*p. They made no sense. It made no sense. But then did most of the 80s???? No! Of course it didn't. (I should know, I was there for all of it as a child/teenager/young man )
> 
> Unlikeable characters from movies. Easy. The childcatcher from Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang. Still makes me shiver and nauseous when I see someone that is close to his likeness. Also get a similar vibe from the Munsters (it was played in the UK in the late 70s. Probably because it was dirt cheap)...however not that the characters were bad. Yet, they somehow thinking about that show, even now, makes me barf at 'peeled boiled potatoes', that I think were there in the show somewhere. Or might have been my Sunday dinner at the time.



*St Elmos Fire *would have been a far better film if  .Freddy Krueger, Jason Vorhees , Michael Myers  or Pinhead and his Cenobites  had all shown up.


----------



## KGeo777 (Jun 15, 2019)

Exsqueeze me.

The Phantom Menace was such a spectacular disappointment to see in 1999.
I'd say within 5 minutes I thought "I have a bad feeling about this."

The saber fight was the only redeeming thing.

That's funny about the Munsters since the feature film was set in the UK. They retconned it so Herman was adopted by a family in England.
But it was shot in California. It is very difficult to make California look like English countryside!

In a scene where he and Grandpa have to climb over a vat of acid in a mansion basement he looks to it and says: "You'd think the Department of Health would get them to take care of that."


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jun 15, 2019)

I think in the TV series Herman and Grandpa were far above anything the cast of Elmo's Fire could ever deliver, no comparison. The movie was just a commercial vehicle to announce the world syndication of the TV series which worked better than the movie perhaps because they were limited to 30 minutes. From what I recall The Three Stooges movies with exception of the Hercules movie didn't fare anywhere as well as the shorts.


----------



## Boneman (Jun 15, 2019)

Steve martin in '*Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' *First time I saw it, I was annoyed by his ridiculous over-acting, and now I simply cannot watch it again, which is a shame, because it's a great movie.


----------



## Mouse (Jun 15, 2019)

James Bond.


----------



## Cathbad (Jun 15, 2019)

Mouse said:


> James Bond.


Depends which actor.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jun 15, 2019)

Mouse said:


> James Bond.



He is basically a knob.


----------



## reiver33 (Jun 15, 2019)

Bond should be a thug in a suit with no high-tech chicanery. The current incarnation has probably been closest to that image.


----------



## picklematrix (Jun 15, 2019)

Elizabeth and Will from the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise were always dead weight to me. 
Mary Jane in the Sam Raimi spiderman trilogy ate up screen time that would have been better spent on Willem Dafoe acting weird.


----------



## Cathbad (Jun 15, 2019)

Bond:  Brosnan was my favorite, Sean second.  Moore was a fine actor, but unsuitable as Bond.  Niven was passable.  Dalton horribly inept in the role!  Craig is not Bond material, either, and is best suited for non-speaking roles!  I can't comment on the others, because I never saw them.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 16, 2019)

Just goes to show how polarised opinions can be. I hated Brosnan as Bond and Dalton was my favourite.


----------



## Ian Fortytwo (Jun 16, 2019)

Roger Moore was my favourite, because I met him once during his Bond films.


----------



## Danny McG (Jun 16, 2019)

Woody in all the Toy Stories, what a bossy little creep he is


----------



## Boneman (Jun 16, 2019)

Mouse said:


> James Bond.


God yes!!! Roger Moore, who turned it into 'Carry on Bond'....


----------



## Narkalui (Jun 17, 2019)

Vince W said:


> Anakin Skywalker. The helmet helped him immensely.


Darth Vader was an excellent antagonist because he was so cold and, most importantly, controlling. I always assumed that as a Jedi he would once again be in control, but this time with compassion and sentimentality. Instead we got a petulant, impulsive, cock -sure, spoiled brat. Makes no sense


----------



## Ian Fortytwo (Jun 17, 2019)

I hate the Joker. Whoever plays his part.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 17, 2019)

Narkalui said:


> Darth Vader was an excellent antagonist because he was so cold and, most importantly, controlling. I always assumed that as a Jedi he would once again be in control, but this time with compassion and sentimentality. Instead we got a petulant, impulsive, cock -sure, spoiled brat. Makes no sense



Because George Lucas at the time that he was making Star Wars ,didn't really think the the film would be the mega blockbuster that it turned into nor did he really have a blueprint for any sequels or prequels.


----------



## Vince W (Jun 17, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Because George Lucas at the time that he was making Star Wars ,didn't really think the the film would be the mega blockbuster that it turned into nor did he really have a blueprint for any sequels or prequels.


True, but he had plenty of time to think about it before they happened, so he's still at fault.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 17, 2019)

Vince W said:


> True, but he had plenty of time to think about it before they happened, so he's still at fault.



He was basically winging it.


----------



## Vince W (Jun 17, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> He was basically winging it.


I'd say he was in freefall.


----------



## Cathbad (Jun 17, 2019)

Vince W said:


> I'd say he was in freefall.


Oh!  A TRUE Star Wars fan, eh?


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 17, 2019)

Rodders said:


> Just goes to show how polarised opinions can be. I hated Brosnan as Bond and Dalton was my favourite.



I wish Timothy Dalton had played Bond alot more then he did. His Bond  scary and dangerous.  He was magnificent in the role.   Piece Brosnan is a very good actor , but he wasn't  really the best fit for Bond.


----------



## Cathbad (Jun 17, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> I wish Timothy Dalton had played Bond alot more then he did. His Bond  scary and dangerous.  He was magnificent in the role.   Piece Brosnan is a very good actor , but he wasn't  really the best fit for Bond.


BOOOO BOOOO!




 ​


----------



## -K2- (Jun 17, 2019)

Cathbad said:


> BOOOO BOOOO!



Agree... without the wink!

IMO, Timothy Dalton was the anti-Bond.  Sensitive, PC *_shudder_*, a caring gentleman to the point he seemed asexual.  The person who turned me on to James Bond, insisted-- that I watch them skipping the first few and watch 'You Only Live Twice,' first.  When young, his Dad took him and his brother to see it in '67 (against the wishes of his mother)... past that, I went back to the beginning and watched them in order, and since then have watched them all.

So, naturally, like he, Connery was Bond.  A man's-man, suave though confidently aloof-- blah, blah, blah.  The rest were pseudo-Bonds, but, I really liked Brosnan.  Though who doesn't?  When James 'Blonde' was announced, Craig, I was absolutely prepared with every reason and justification to argue that there was ONLY, one Bond... Connery. *Boy, was I wrong.*

Craig added that bit of sociopathic detachment that Connery only hinted at... So, I have been turned.  Craig is the best Bond ever.  Best of all, the man that turned me onto James Bond, grudgingly agrees.

And all is right in the world, once again 

K2


----------



## Cathbad (Jun 17, 2019)

-K2- said:


> When James 'Blonde' was announced, Craig, I was absolutely prepared with every reason and justification to argue that there was ONLY, one Bond... Connery. *Boy, was I wrong.*
> 
> Craig added that bit of sociopathic detachment that Connery only hinted at... So, I have been turned.  Craig is the best Bond ever.  Best of all, the man that turned me onto James Bond, grudgingly agrees.
> 
> ...


I'll agree, Craig had the right attitude... now if he could only deliver his lines using appropriate simulated emotions!


----------



## Toby Frost (Jun 18, 2019)

Goodness. To think we've got this far without mentioning Captain Jack Sparrow. Watching him is like watching someone do an impersonation of somebody* that they've only heard of by rumour, and of which they're inexplicably extremely proud. Bond is a bit of a non-character, just a moody tuxedo that shoots things and makes bad quips, and is easier to ignore. Jack Sparrow is full-on, in-your-face ghastly.

*I know it's meant to be Keith Richards but frankly it could be Michael Caine or David Bowie on the way home from the pub.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 14, 2019)

Every single character in the movie *Glengarry Glen Ross. *This is another film which there is not one likable or even remotely redeemable character in the entire film.


----------



## CupofJoe (Oct 14, 2019)

Just about any character played by Jim Carrey... The only exception is The Majestic [2001]. I liked him in that...
Otherwise, he makes my skin crawl and not in the fun way...


----------



## Ian Fortytwo (Oct 14, 2019)

Funny I didn't like any character that Tom Hanks played, until I watched *The Bridge of Spies* and *Sully.*


----------



## Boneman (Oct 14, 2019)

Every single character in The Perfect Storm. I know it was 'based' on a true story, but the way they were portrayed just made me want them dead much quicker. (And I think the relatives wanted to sue the film makers for such inaccurate portrayals...?)


----------



## Vareor (Oct 14, 2019)

Every character played by Shia LaBeouf. Ok, I just don't like the actor.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 14, 2019)

Vareor said:


> Every character played by Shia LaBeouf. Ok, I just don't like the actor.



I liked in* Indiana  Jones and the Kingdom of the Crytal Skull* and *Fury* . But not much else.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 14, 2019)

CupofJoe said:


> Just about any character played by Jim Carrey... The only exception is The Majestic [2001]. I liked him in that...
> Otherwise, he makes my skin crawl and not in the fun way...



He was very good in *The  Majestic.  *I also liked him in *The Truman Show*  and the character that he played . This to is one of his  best roles. 

Given the sudden resurgence of Disaster movies , I  would like to have  seen him do *Fire Marshall Bill The Movie.*


----------



## CupofJoe (Oct 14, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> He was very good in *The  Majestic.  *I also liked him in *The Truman Show* and the character that he played . This to is one of his best roles.
> Given the sudden resurgence of Disaster movies , I  would like to have  seen him do *Fire Marshall Bill The Movie.*


Okay I will give you that Jim Carrey wasn't bad in _The Truman Show_. but I was never a fan of _TTS_. _Pleasantville_ came out at about the same time and I think did the whole - Are we living a real life? - thing a whole lot better. It was nowhere near as successful but I liked it more.
Having just looked up a clip of YouTube, I would pay money *NOT* to see any more Fire Marshall Bill


----------



## Vareor (Oct 14, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> I liked in* Indiana  Jones and the Kingdom of the Crytal Skull* and *Fury* . But not much else.



Oh, I totally forgot he played in Fury. You're right, that was a great movie. Perhaps, being among such a good cast just forced him to elevate his own acting.
I wrote my initial message thinking about his performance in the Transformers series. I guess for me, he's one of those persons you just don't like for reasons even you don't understand.


----------



## Narkalui (Oct 14, 2019)

What was the one he was in about the moonshiners?


----------



## Vareor (Oct 14, 2019)

You mean Lawless?


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Oct 14, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Jar Jar Binks



Can I ask what everybody so dislikes about this character? I've heard of his unpopularity all over the place, and I've seen the movie several times, but I still don't get why he's so _hated_. I can certainly think of a _number_ of characters across the SW movies that deserve to be mentioned here...Jar Jar wouldn't exactly be one of the ones at the top of my list.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 14, 2019)

Mr Potter in the film .* It's Wonderful Life   *. Greedy , grasping , Miserly. mean spirited , deceitful and cruel.  An Absolutely Irredeemable and evil man.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 14, 2019)

Margaret Note Spelling said:


> Can I ask what everybody so dislikes about this character? I've heard of his unpopularity all over the place, and I've seen the movie several times, but I still don't get why he's so _hated_.



Because Jar Jar is an idiotic, annoying and otherwise useless character that  Lucas should have scrapped.


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Oct 14, 2019)

How, primarily, did you find him annoying?


----------



## Star-child (Oct 14, 2019)

Margaret Note Spelling said:


> Can I ask what everybody so dislikes about this character? I've heard of his unpopularity all over the place, and I've seen the movie several times, but I still don't get why he's so _hated_. I can certainly think of a _number_ of characters across the SW movies that deserve to be mentioned here...Jar Jar wouldn't exactly be one of the ones at the top of my list.


He's like featuring Scooby Doo in The French Connection. Doesn't fit the story, atmosphere or asthetic of the series. And Jar Jar would grate even in an appropriately child oriented film with his "Mammy" pidgeon English.


----------



## Dave (Oct 14, 2019)

CupofJoe said:


> Just about any character played by Jim Carrey... The only exception is The Majestic [2001]. I liked him in that...
> Otherwise, he makes my skin crawl and not in the fun way...


No way! _Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind_ is his best film and he isn't funny in anything else. He is just someone who can successfully gurn.


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Oct 15, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Because Jar Jar is an idiotic, annoying and otherwise useless character that Lucas should have scrapped.



I can agree with _useless_, I think, except that that implies he's taking up more space than his role in the story deserves....and I guess I just didn't get that feeling. He was never that big of a character for me to begin with--I always saw him as more of a foil for all the other characters. Almost a bit of the environment (which just happened to more-or-less speak) that they all had to navigate while getting the main business of the plot done. A "pathetic life form" that never tried to be, and was never intended to be, anything more than that within the story.



Star-child said:


> He's like featuring Scooby Doo in The French Connection. Doesn't fit the story, atmosphere or asthetic of the series. And Jar Jar would grate even in an appropriately child oriented film with his "Mammy" pidgeon English.



Now that's actually sparked an interesting thought in my head...because The Phantom Menace actually _featured_ a very young child main character. And I first watched and enjoyed the movie as a child myself. The character of Jar Jar might not have fit in the original three (more adult) movies, but (setting aside the argument of whether he would _even_ fit in something aimed at children) now I wonder if The Phantom Menace was _intended_ to be aimed more at kids. Could that be why someone with qualities like Jar Jar's was included? It doesn't justify the character, if the character really didn't work...but it does provide something of an _explanation_ for his presence there. I'm wondering if one of the problems is that many people who loved the first three films (probably most of them adults by the time 1999 rolled around) were not _expecting_ a children-oriented film, and thus elements like impulsive-Anakin, and Jar Jar really _jarred_, if you'll excuse the expression. It would have been like expecting to sit down and finding somebody pulled the chair out from under you. Or, which is probably a closer analogy, paying for a story you expect to be like Lord of the Rings and finding out it's more like a Jane Austen. That can be annoying, and if the story was by an author proven to write stories like Tolkien's--in the same series as this one, no less--then the new Jane-Austen-y elements can definitely feel like they ruined the story.

Does that sound like it could be a plausible, or at least contributing, reason for why Jar Jar is so _widely_ disliked above many SW characters?


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 15, 2019)

Margaret Note Spelling said:


> I can agree with _useless_, I think, except that that implies he's taking up more space than his role in the story deserves....and I guess I just didn't get that feeling. He was never that big of a character for me to begin with--I always saw him as more of a foil for all the other characters. Almost a bit of the environment (which just happened to more-or-less speak) that they all had to navigate while getting the main business of the plot done. A "pathetic life form" that never tried to be, and was never intended to be, anything more than that within the story.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I liked the first three stars wars films .As for the prequels,   I have absolutely no use for them at all.  I was so glad when Lucas sold th right to Disney and I like the Abrams films, I like Rogue One  and I like Solo.


----------



## Star-child (Oct 15, 2019)

Margaret Note Spelling said:


> Does that sound like it could be a plausible, or at least contributing, reason for why Jar Jar is so _widely_ disliked above many SW characters?


All the Star Wars original films were loved by children - I was five when the first came out. So unless Harry Potter would be better with Barney, your thesis doesn't work.


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Oct 15, 2019)

Star-child said:


> All the Star Wars original films were loved by children - I was five when the first came out. So unless Harry Potter would be better with Barney, your thesis doesn't work.



Actually, I'm making a distinction between a film that is widely _enjoyed_ by kids, and a film that is _aimed_ at kids. Just because kids like the first Star Wars doesn't mean the producers were actually aiming specifically to appeal to kids. If they were, that does change things for the theory. But whether kids like a film or _not_, the fact is different decisions are made depending on the audience the producers are hoping to snag.

In any case, I'm not even suggesting anything along the lines of The Phantom Menace being _better_ with the addition of Jar Jar Binks. I'm not particularly enamored of the character myself. I'm just a little confused by the chorus of dislike for this one (as far as I'm concerned) more-or-less harmless character. Also, I agree Harry Potter would probably not benefit significantly from the addition of a magical purple dinosaur who sings songs and teaches basic schoolyard rules to children under six years old. If only because none of the characters would listen.

Come to that, I think the theory's really only strengthened by the Barney analogy. Barney himself isn't a particularly bad character--in his place. But to put him in Harry Potter and expect people to take him as seriously as everything else, that's a mistake. I agree it would be a similar mistake with Jar Jar.

I'm just not sure that he _was_ intended to be taken as seriously as everything else in the story.

That's just the way it came across to me when I watched it; I'm honestly not defending the character, or suggesting anyone should actually _like_ him. I suspect he's too far gone for that! I'm just wondering about the existence of an _additional_ reason for all the hatred, another ingredient in the chemical disaster known as Jar Jar Binks. Switchbacked expectations make up an equally valid reason for disliking the character. But I simply don't have a lot of context for identifying how _much_ they overall played into Jar Jar's epic fandom-downfall.


----------



## Narkalui (Oct 15, 2019)

Vareor said:


> You mean Lawless?


Thank you, I liked Lawless.


----------



## KGeo777 (Oct 15, 2019)

Lucas said Star Wars was expected to make the same money as a Planet of the Apes film which indicates it was not aimed specifically at ages 7 and up as Lucas later claimed. In fact, there was no true children's film market in the 1970s. No one was going to spend $7 million to make a film exclusively aimed at small children. The pacing of TPM is completely wonky. If it was more like the originals in pace I think JarJar would have been a little less annoying. The other deficiencies in the film helps one to focus on him. Exsqueeze me.

Re: Kevin Spacey. In _Glengarry Glen Ross he _deserves a comeuppance but then is saved. The same thing happens in_ Seven_. The logical ending would have been for Brad Pitt to shoot himself, thus robbing John Doe of his success and ironically, also validating his negative world view. Either action would make no difference to Morgan Freeman's POV or the final narration.
Ditto with _The Usual Suspects_--what if a real cripple momentarily blocked his path to prevent his escape? In all three films Spacey is a jerk in one way or another but is triumphant.


----------



## Toby Frost (Oct 15, 2019)

I've got this theory that Spacey's contract used to stipulate "must be cleverest/wisest man in film".

I think there are a few arguments against Jar Jar. Firstly, he’s just annoying: his voice is loud and silly and he gets in the way of the film where, properly done, he would be providing comic relief and commentary on the events. Secondly, the tone of Phantom Menace is all over the place. Both he and Anakin feel as if they’re from a straight-up kids’ film: in the original films, Anakin wouldn’t be able to win a space battle by pressing buttons to see what they do. But then you’ve got the heavy talk about trade negotiations, and so on. And thirdly, there’s the view that Jar Jar is uncomfortably similar to a comedic black man in an old film, with his foolish clowning and sort-of-Jamaican accent. IIRC, there was a feeling that the devious fish-people and the miserly shopkeeper were also given accents that made them rather like racial stereotypes (I think earlier Star Wars films had aliens with distorted voices, but American accents. Except for the space Nazis, who were English, of course).


----------



## Dave (Oct 15, 2019)

I think what Toby just said is a good summary of what I read at the time of the release of the sequels, and to be honest, this ground has been pretty well ploughed over within the _Star Wars_ forums here, so could I ask that we give examples of characters that aren't from _Star Wars_.


Toby Frost said:


> Except for the space Nazis, who were English, of course


What about this? It is true, and not only in _Star Wars,_ or for Nazis. Whenever Hollywood needs an evil character 9/10 times he has an English accent (and never Irish or Scots.) In the USA that probably is never even noticed, but as someone from England it can irk after a while. Though it does keep Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman in work


----------



## Toby Frost (Oct 15, 2019)

In _Rogue One_, there’s a scene where the characters go to Space Fighter Command at the rebel stronghold and talk to a man who, to put it bluntly, sounds quite like me. Whilst watching it, I instinctively labelled him as either a traitor, a coward or a fool and expected him to be revealed as such. Somewhat later, I had a moment of “Hey, wait a minute…” and it occurred to me that it must be very annoying to see every damn character who resembles you doing the same stupid things, in film after film.

On the other side of the coin, the robot character in _Solo_ is absolutely hated on the crackpot-right: partly because she’s got a female voice and partly for her “set my people free” schtick about the other robots (which surely doesn’t logically work, because they’re robots, but still…). In fairness, there's probably a more reasonable argument that she's just annoying. Which leads me to think that...

Generally, I’d say that the problem comes when the filmmakers have decided that “You WILL love this person, and I will fill the screen with them until you do”. I had this problem with River Tam in _Firefly_, who is meant to be troubled and unhappy, but is clearly an author’s darling. Yes, she is portrayed as disturbed, but she never loses a fight or is humiliated by other characters, unlike Jayne, who I find much more likeable. For me, it’s about the character “earning” the right to take up screen time with their antics. I think this is done quite well with the Alyson Hannigan character in the first couple of _American Pie_ films, who is just a one-joke figure, but is allowed more screen time in the sequel once it’s proven that the character works and isn’t just a nuisance.


----------



## Mouse (Oct 15, 2019)

I loved L3 in Star Wars, probably because she had a female voice - like me. I also like River Tam.

A character who I utterly detested, who was obviously the writers' darling, was Jack Shepherd in Lost. I know that's a TV series. But urgh, what a vile, horrible character. And the writers decided we need backstory on "how Jack got his tattoos" rather than anything more interesting like what the bloody smoke monster is. I've tried rewatching Lost and can't because Jack makes me so angry. And I was a _huge_ Lost fan.


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Oct 15, 2019)

Toby Frost said:


> Generally, I’d say that the problem comes when the filmmakers have decided that “You WILL love this person, and I will fill the screen with them until you do”.



You know, I think that might be the true definition of a Mary Sue? I remember running across a Youtube video some months back which I thought analyzed the concept behind a Mary Sue wonderfully...hold on, let me look for it...okay, here we go.

[YouTube media removed by moderator]


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Oct 15, 2019)

If we're including TV series, can I mention that John Sheppard from Stargate Atlantis is drastically overrated? His moral sense was literally all over the place, while at the same time the writers obviously took care to make him _always right_ as far as the story was concerned. In fact, I've heard the actor say they didn't want Sheppard to be dark, 'cause, well, he's the _hero_.

But it seems like at the same time they wanted him to be flawed and interesting and mysterious, and so even when all of that took him straight into "dark," he was still treated like a regular, unfallen hero. As if they were trying too hard to protect his admirable, heroic status, does that make sense? His character in Vegas was frankly his best portrayal of the series--and that was an alternate universe where his good qualities _weren't_ shoved in our faces, and he actually made acknowledged moral _mistakes_, and he _wasn't_ the beloved leader of the main character team (as, we all know, the true hero _always_ should be).

He _would_ have been an interesting character--he had enough interesting issues in him--if they'd just gone all the way and _let_ him be wrong sometimes. As a character, he couldn't take the consequences. The writers wouldn't truly punish him for anything he did, and I mean punishment intended to _teach_ him what he did wrong, not injuries or aborted scoldings.

I'm sorry--this is the thread for ranting, right? 

Anyway, I'm sorry if I skewed this thread towards Star Wars! But now I'm a little more clear about why people dislike Jar Jar, thanks everybody. That, for me, is a really useful exercise--not only identifying the worst characters in a story, the ones that really fail in a spectacular way, but then going on to figure out exactly _why_ it happened. Then I know a lot more about how to not make the same kinds of mistakes myself. If you can see where a published work failed somewhere, and understand exactly why...well, that's actually one of my biggest motives for writing: seeing all the failed, or at least somewhat neglected, ideas lying around that nobody's ever used to their full potential, and itching to go and do some of them _right_ myself.

...Not _all_ of them, I hasten to add. Don't go expecting to find a rehabilitated Jar Jar walking around in my world.

Just rest assured that if you do, he _will_ work, in all the ways the original character did not!


----------



## Star-child (Oct 15, 2019)

Margaret Note Spelling said:


> Don't go expecting to find a rehabilitated Jar Jar walking around in my world.


If there is one, hopefully he doesn't also look like an aquatic Roger Rabbit.


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Oct 15, 2019)

Star-child said:


> If there is one, hopefully he doesn't also look like an aquatic Roger Rabbit.



Oh, that would be _far_ too obvious.


----------



## KGeo777 (Oct 15, 2019)

Margaret Note Spelling said:


> Anyway, I'm sorry if I skewed this thread towards Star Wars!



You're exsqueezed.


----------



## Toby Frost (Oct 15, 2019)

Mouse said:


> I loved L3 in Star Wars, probably because she had a female voice - like me.



You're spoiling it for everyone! Now I can't watch it again because you've spoiled it! I will be petitioning Disney to remake it!

As for that video... the first half is spot on, although all of that has been said elsewhere, and isn't really controversial. The second half is alt-right "Feminazi libtards stole our fandom!" stuff, and doesn't link to the first half in any real way. No personal offence intended, but it looks like propaganda to me.


----------



## MikeAnderson (Oct 15, 2019)

Margaret Note Spelling said:


> Can I ask what everybody so dislikes about this character? I've heard of his unpopularity all over the place, and I've seen the movie several times, but I still don't get why he's so _hated_. I can certainly think of a _number_ of characters across the SW movies that deserve to be mentioned here...Jar Jar wouldn't exactly be one of the ones at the top of my list.


1.Poorly animated
2. Poor dialogue
3. Looks ridiculous and badly designed
3. Sounds like something D.W. Griffin would've put in his movies if they had sound back in the day. Seriously, all Jar Jar needs is a plate of collard greens doing the shuck and jive on stage, and he's the perfect personification of straight up racist character. Jar Jar Binks is what Al Jolston would have done if sci-fi was popular in the 30's.

Seriously, we had to explain this one to you?!?


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Oct 16, 2019)

Toby Frost said:


> As for that video... the first half is spot on, although all of that has been said elsewhere, and isn't really controversial. The second half is alt-right "Feminazi libtards stole our fandom!" stuff, and doesn't link to the first half in any real way. No personal offence intended, but it looks like propaganda to me.



Well, I know very little about the specific spectrums of intense political opinion that permeate our popular media (one of the few ignorances I cherish, actually) and frankly I recognized very few of the examples the Youtuber was giving. But I do agree with the abstract principles he pulled, because I've _seen_ characters that are like that. I thought he was exactly right. As to the specific instances he cited, I can't say. Any propaganda was lost on me.

Not knowing precisely what "Feminazi libtards" are, nor the definition of alt-right, I guess I simply don't have the same kind of context you do for analyzing this video.


----------



## tegeus-Cromis (Oct 16, 2019)

Toby Frost said:


> The second half is alt-right "Feminazi libtards stole our fandom!" stuff, and doesn't link to the first half in any real way. No personal offence intended, but it looks like propaganda to me.


You can already tell it's going to be like that from its use of "SJW" in the thumbnail screen.


----------



## Narkalui (Oct 16, 2019)

I haven't actually watched that clip yet, what does SJW stand for?


----------



## Elckerlyc (Oct 16, 2019)

Well, I had no idea either, so I Googled.

*SJW *– Social Justice Warrior
Social justice warrior is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics. The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments.

Which put the whole clip in a certain light, as @tegeus-Cromis already said.


----------



## Dave (Oct 16, 2019)

It stands for "social justice warrior" and while I realise the clip was added innocently, we don't discuss politics here so please let's move on. If anyone starts to discuss social politics or take exception to Toby's comments about the clip then the thread will get closed.

In fact, I'm going to remove the clip before someone does just that. if anyone wants to watch it they can search YouTube for it.


----------



## Toby Frost (Oct 16, 2019)

As I say, no offence or personal attack intended. This whole "culture wars" phenomenon is a new one, especially the idea that including certain sorts of character is inherently political (I don't think it is, one way or the other). In fact, the first half of the argument being made in the video was very good - which is kind of why the rest of it bothers me. If anyone wants to take down my earlier comments, in the absence of the clip, feel free.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 16, 2019)

Another film with cast of unlikable characters* The Hollow Man *and it was an awful film.


----------



## Toby Frost (Oct 16, 2019)

Is that the 90s one about the invisible guy? I'd completely forgotten that it existed!


----------



## Margaret Note Spelling (Oct 16, 2019)

I'm truly chagrined. If anyone was offended by the video, I apologize. I meant nothing.


----------



## tinkerdan (Oct 16, 2019)

I'm a bit baffled by this thread.
I think unlikable characters could be well done yet unlikable.
Such as Hannibal Lecter--there is no way I could ever like that character, yet he works for the part and the plot.

What I see being highlighted here are characters that somehow manage to ruin the experience for some of the audience.

I'd envision the thread to be looking more for things like:

In the movie Jackal with Richard Gere and Bruce Willis I could never like that character played by Bruce Willis--However Bruce did a great job making him so unlikable.


----------



## KGeo777 (Oct 16, 2019)

Star Wars was always "SJW" -- the original film stripped away some traditional adventure narrative elements like the self-reliant hero. Luke uses technology and magic to succeed more than natural strength or ability.  But if you look at the poster art for the original film--Luke is depicted as a muscle-bound he-man. Also, in the Marvel comics cover art--Luke is shown as a kickass kind of guy--on the second issue cover he is depicted fighting the aliens in the cantina which as we know is the exact opposite of what happens. 

In the OT I think the only characters who are depicted as natural achievers are Wedge and Lando. Han Solo is more of a trickster--using luck and tricks not adventure hero behavior.
And the negatives were cranked up over time.
By the end of ROTJ Luke is begging his father to save him from the Emperor and even after he cremates his body he is still feeling mopey until the ghosts appear to reassure him.
The central theme of the prequels is failure (we did not know in 1977 that Obi Wan Kenobi failed as a teacher-we assumed he was an old wise wizard-type character in voluntary exile), so it is no surprise that the sequels would continue this trend. 

Where the head scratching comes is that Rey is not presented as a failure character but the opposite and people can pick up the difference in handling--but that is in keeping with the trajectory too--the leader of the Empire was a man (no women around in fact)  while the leader of the rebellion was a woman.
These things were ignored because people had been razzle-dazzled by the pioneering visual effects but now we are immune to that, the non traditional story and character aspects stand out. Having a woman has a warrior is not the issue, it is the type of woman-she is more of a Mary Poppins than a Xena or Ripley in attitude. It seems less believable or counter to expectations.
If Lucas had made the sequels I suspect  the story would have gone much the same way generally speaking. The Other would have been a woman--if not Leia than someone else.  

But there's an expectation that Luke is a successful hero (like the poster and comic art depicted). Hamill expected to be doing a 1977 kind of Kenobi "passing the torch" part in the new films but that is because he had assumed Star Wars was following a traditional kind of adventure story framework--but it doesn't and never did.
I am not defending the new films, just pointing out that the way it was heading was inevitable since the previous trilogies were on the same thematic track.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 17, 2019)

Toby Frost said:


> Is that the 90s one about the invisible guy? I'd completely forgotten that it existed!



That was the film . Directed by Paul Verhoeven  and staring  Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth Shue  .


----------



## Dave (Oct 17, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> That was the film . Directed by Paul Verhoeven  and staring  Kevin Bacon and Elizabeth Shue  .


I bought that DVD from a charity shop. It is the dullest film that I own on DVD.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 26, 2019)

Dave said:


> I bought that DVD from a charity shop. It is the dullest film that I own on DVD.



Inspire  of the negative reviews , It actually made money at the box office.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2019)

*The Razors Edge  *Isobel Bradley.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Nov 10, 2019)

I’ve never understood the obsession with the craptastic Boba Fett. His fandom was made redundant within moments of Jango’s introduction.

Also Eve Harrington as I have similar experiences with a ‘friend’ like that 

pH


----------



## Vince W (Nov 10, 2019)

Phyrebrat said:


> I’ve never understood the obsession with the craptastic Boba Fett. His fandom was made redundant within moments of Jango’s introduction.
> 
> Also Eve Harrington as I have similar experiences with a ‘friend’ like that
> 
> pH


Boba was like that guy you knew as a teenager that had cool clothes and a cool car. As long as you kept your distance he stayed cool. The minute you got to know him even a little bit he was revealed to be an incompetent idiot.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 10, 2019)

In TESB Boba Fett was kind of a Man with No Name, but was turned into a feeble character by the third film (for that matter-did any character in Star Wars not end up the same way? Darth Vader, Luke, Han Solo (a lousy smuggler--he is the kind of character in a gangster movie who isn't smart enough to avoid getting on the bad side of a mob boss and ends up getting worked over in the back alley).


----------



## thaddeus6th (Nov 10, 2019)

Palpatine.


----------



## Starbeast (Nov 10, 2019)

And now for something completely different...........

My mothers most hated character in science fiction, is from the 1960's TV series, LOST IN SPACE. That would be, the late great actor, Jonathan Harris's character, *Dr Zachary Smith*.




She thought he was thee most untrustworthy, scheming rat, ever to walk on two legs. "He was greedy, self-centered, wasteful, braggart, unreliable, lazy, thief, uncaring, lying, no-good etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. AND, he would trade all his friends (including the robot), for a ride back home to Earth (from any stranger), without blinking an eye. TOTALLY DESPICABLE!!!!!!!"

She was correct.

However, I looked at Dr Smith like a child who's stuck in a man's body. He needed guidance, because he isn't used to nice people who are trying to help him. His young friend Will Robinson, was like a mentor toward him. Teaching the doctor about life and consequences that were taught to him by his father, John Robinson. Will, always tried to strengthen the good qualities he saw within Dr Smith. But Zachary, like an innocent child, was always lured by temptation.

There are a few well written episodes that centered on Dr Smith, that were heart-warming. Even bringing a tear to my eye. I enjoy watching Dr Smith change from being a wicked person, to someone who would look inside their self and think, "I want to do the right thing. I have a wonderful family that loves me. I want to be a better person!"


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2019)

Starbeast said:


> And now for something completely different...........
> 
> My mothers most hated character in science fiction, is from the 1960's TV series, LOST IN SPACE. That would be, the late great actor, Jonathan Harris's character, *Dr Zachary Smith*.
> 
> ...



Based on the back story  we got in the series , Smith's family life  was truly  horrific  so,  it's  understandable  that he was the way he was and made the choices that he did.  By the time Smith met  the Robinsons , he was a ruined man and all but dead inside .   I think that when got to know the Robinsons  better , he saw in them  everything that he wished he  was and never got the chance to be growing up . Knowing them and loving them, made him want to change.  There  are moments when he would rise to the occasion and you could see that there was in truth great good in Zachary Smith .  You couldn't help but root for him.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 10, 2019)

Guy Williams felt that the focus on Dr Smith killed the show's potential and I think he is right. The first season was pretty good-some interesting  SF stories---but for the most part, the other two seasons focused only on Smith and while he did amuse, they went overboard a fair bit--"the Great Vegetable Rebellion" comes to mind.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> Guy Williams felt that the focus on Dr Smith killed the show's potential and I think he is right. The first season was pretty good-some interesting  SF stories---but for the most part, the other two seasons focused only on Smith and while he did amuse, they went overboard a fair bit--"the Great Vegetable Rebellion" comes to mind.



Making the series campy was a huge mistake.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 10, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Making the series campy was a huge mistake.


Camp is probably the only reason a low budget SF show like that lasted at all.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2019)

Star-child said:


> Camp is probably the only reason a low budget SF show like that lasted at all.



I think that  sped up the demise of those shows more then anything. The problem is that when you do camp its novelty value quickly dissipates audiences , especially  so if the writing is bad.


----------



## Starbeast (Nov 10, 2019)

@KGeo777 The final season should have been titled, "The Doctor & Will Show." featuring the Robot and a few likable characters.

However, as a little kid (me) watching the show, I loved all seasons. A carrot man............cool.

@BAYLOR It was a different time back then in the 1960's. *When BATMAN  became a TV show. it doomed many other shows, because many viewers loved camp.*

Then slowly, eventually, sitcoms returned. And guys like me ended up watching reruns of science fiction and strange tale TV shows.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 10, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> I think that  sped up the demise of those shows more then anything. The problem is that when you do camp its novelty value quickly dissipates audiences , especially  so if the writing is bad.


Camp isn't a good thing, but "Swiss Family Robinson In Space" is also all novelty when it comes to episodic writing. There are just so many stories to write about people stuck in one place before you're repeating yourself or presenting the absurd. The reason modern SF series seem to work at all is their mini-series format with an overall story arc to hold audience attentions.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2019)

Starbeast said:


> @KGeo777 The final season should have been titled, "The Doctor & Will Show." featuring the Robot and a few likable characters.
> 
> However, as a little kid (me) watching the show, I loved all seasons. A carrot man............cool.
> 
> ...



I disliked that  Batman because of the camp crap. It's one  of the reason I never got into superhero comic books as a kid, that and the wretched Super Friends  which was was dumbed down Justice  league.   I  never really took superhero. comic book  seriously until years later and Miller's The Dark Knight.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 10, 2019)

Would Batman have been much less popular if they didn't make it so jokey?

Disney had done a couple of superhero type series (Zorro--with Guy Williams) which lasted two years and didnt have the guest stars to prop it up either  and Scarecrow of Romney Marsh which I think was the blueprint for Batman--it even had a catchy theme song (Scarecroow, Scarecrooow, the soldiers of the king feared his name..").
The sister show to Batman was the Green Hornet which was serious but lacked the guest stars . I have heard the decision to make it jokey was due to the producer (who also did the narration).


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> Would Batman have been much less popular if they didn't make it so jokey?
> 
> Disney had done a couple of superhero type series (Zorro--with Guy Williams) which lasted two years and didnt have the guest stars to prop it up either  and Scarecrow of Romney Marsh which I think was the blueprint for Batman--it even had a catchy theme song (Scarecroow, Scarecrooow, the soldiers of the king feared his name..").
> The sister show to Batman was the Green Hornet which was serious but lacked the guest stars . I have heard the decision to make it jokey was due to the producer (who also did the narration).



  Adam West was a very good actor and probably could have played a serious Batman with no problems  . A little tongue in check humor would have been okay . I think if the writing had been really good , Batman as a  serious show could have worked.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 10, 2019)

I assume West was ultimately chosen because he had to wear the mask most of the time and had THE perfect voice for it. Ward was a very good Robin it has to be said. Jokes aside he was exactly as the comics of the time depicted him to be. It was trendy in 1989 to attack the series and diss West and Romero's Joker but in fact his Joker was the comic book depiction.

Also, Romero and Adam West were in the correct height range.

Michael Keaton is 5'9. An inch taller than Burt Ward!

I watched the 1977 Spider-man pilot recently which I had not seen in decades and the undeniable fact is, Nicholas Hammond was the closest to the standard comic book depiction of Peter Parker out of any of the actors since. He totally looked the part (except for his hairstyle).


----------



## Star-child (Nov 10, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Adam West was a very good actor and probably could have played a serious Batman with no problems  . A little tongue in check humor would have been okay . I think if the writing had been really good , Batman as a  serious show could have worked.


Which doesn't really make up for the absurdity of a superhero show that doesn't have the resources to make a superhero look super, which is the same problem with SF or fantasy shows that aren't able to realistically show those elements. The Green Hornet had an actual superhero - Bruce Lee - working on the production, and he was arguably the reason the show lasted as long as it did.

Comic book superheroes are great for comic books. To bridge to other mediums they have to offer more than simply showing a version of the comic books, because that is only good enough for comic book readers. To transcend the source material for comics, SF or fantasy you can't rely on the fans' knowledge and allegiance because most TV viewers don't read those genres. The reason Alien, Star Wars and 2001 did so well was their amazingly realistic look and feel. They didn't require viewers to suspend their disbelief - they looked real.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2019)

Star-child said:


> Which doesn't really make up for the absurdity of a superhero show that doesn't have the resources to make a superhero look super, which is the same problem with SF or fantasy shows that aren't able to realistically show those elements. The Green Hornet had an actual superhero - Bruce Lee - working on the production, and he was arguably the reason the show lasted as long as it did.
> 
> Comic book superheroes are great for comic books. To bridge to other mediums they have to offer more than simply showing a version of the comic books, because that is only good enough for comic book readers. To transcend the source material for comics, SF or fantasy you can't rely on the fans' knowledge and allegiance because most TV viewers don't read those genres. The reason Alien, Star Wars and 2001 did so well was their amazingly realistic look and feel. They didn't require viewers to suspend their disbelief - they looked real.



In the case of Batman, your over looking one rather important  fact. Batman doesn't have any actual superpowers. He has his fighting skills and his brilliantly deductive mind.  Not much of budget buster there.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 10, 2019)

"The reason Alien, Star Wars and 2001 did so well was their amazingly realistic look and feel. They didn't require viewers to suspend their disbelief - they looked real. "

**
It is also the downside of trying to make "four quadrant" or "one-size-fits-all" art. An audience member who cares more about a realistic set may care less about character--their attention spans are shorter.  An audience member who just likes fantasy and sf wont care if a set looks fake-they can suspend disbelief easily...so you end up with a milder appeasement of a larger number of people but lose the greater enthusiasm of smaller numbers of people.


----------



## soulsinging (Nov 10, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Every single character in the movie *Glengarry Glen Ross. *This is another film which there is not one likable or even remotely redeemable character in the entire film.


Try working in sales for a big corporation. They worship Alec Baldwin in this and seem oblivious to the satire.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2019)

soulsinging said:


> Try working in sales for a big corporation. They worship Alec Baldwin in this and seem oblivious to the satire.



I would quit that  job and happily walked out the door.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 10, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> In the case of Batman, your over looking one rather important  fact. Batman doesn't have any actual superpowers. He has his fighting skills and his brilliantly deductive mind.  Not much of budget buster there.


Bruce Lee didn't have actual super powers, either. The point is that Batman is supposed to some sort of technology augmented ninja, not just a detective who dresses like Frank Costanza's divorce lawyer. Actually depicting unarmed combat that is good against armed criminals is not easy.



KGeo777 said:


> It is also the downside of trying to make "four quadrant" or "one-size-fits-all" art. An audience member who cares more about a realistic set may care less about character--their attention spans are shorter. An audience member who just likes fantasy and sf wont care if a set looks fake-they can suspend disbelief easily...so you end up with a milder appeasement of a larger number of people but lose the greater enthusiasm of smaller numbers of people.


I don't understand. If you make a great superhero (SF, fantasy) show or movie, it will be enjoyed by the base fans _and_ broader audiences. Make a low budget production and you'll only get a portion of the dedicated genre fans - the rest won't be pleased with the adaptation. The reason we even have superhero movies and TV is due to productions like Superman that showed that the genre can have mass appeal when it looks good. And Star Wars is probably the only reason that Star Trek didn't end with the animated series.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 10, 2019)

Star-child said:


> I don't understand. If you make a great superhero (SF, fantasy) show or movie, it will be enjoyed by the base fans _and_ broader audiences. Make a low budget production and you'll only get a portion of the dedicated genre fans - the rest won't be pleased with the adaptation. The reason we even have superhero movies and TV is due to productions like Superman that showed that the genre can have mass appeal when it looks good. And Star Wars is probably the only reason that Star Trek didn't end with the animated series.



But Star Wars is considered poor quality from a story and character POV. Terrible dialogue. This is not the case with many low budget AIP or other genre films from the past. The dedicated sci-fi audience doesn't mind cheap sets and good dramatics.
I would use this as an example--the type of person who may like Alien would probably hate Mario Bava's Hercules or Planet of the Vampires, but serious genre fans have no problem with it. Thus you cannot please all audiences all of the time (and never can).








						Stop Laughing At Old Movies, You $@%&ing Hipsters - LA Weekly
					

Holden Caulfield, the original hipster, was a jerk at the movies. He hated them. He thought actors were phonies, screenwriters were prostitutes, and audiences who sniffled during weepies were “mean bastards at heart.” Holden wasn't a sucker. He was something worse: a laugher—the kind of...




					www.laweekly.com


----------



## Star-child (Nov 10, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> But Star Wars is considered poor quality from a story and character POV. Terrible dialogue. This is not the case with many low budget AIP or other genre films from the past. The dedicated sci-fi audience doesn't mind cheap sets and good dramatics.


No, it isn't. People like to point to the simplistic or even occasionally silly sounding dialogue, but it really has no bearing on the quality of the story telling or the film's overall reception. The story itself is reasonable, contains no obvious plot holes or motivation problems, and traces it's pedigree to Kurosawa. 

We can pick nits and try to re-write history, but you're talking about a film that was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Original Screenplay (Annie Hall won those instead). It did win 6 Emmy's, Golden Globes and Grammys. Critics loved the film and Ebert praised its "pure narrative". So while Star Wars is the contrarian SF fan's favorite punching bag, nearly everyone at the time treated it as GREAT filmmaking, including the story.



KGeo777 said:


> I would use this as an example--the type of person who may like Alien would probably hate Mario Bava's Hercules or Planet of the Vampires, but serious genre fans have no problem with it. Thus you cannot please all audiences all of the time (and never can).


I'm a serious genre fan who has never heard of Planet of the Vampires, so I'm not sure it is an example of successful genre filmmaking. But reading about it doesn't sound like it fits with a comparison to low budget superhero or SF shows but is more of almost an art film with limited distribution. The fact is that comic book fans have had many, many opportunities to make serious TV shows like Captain America successful, but they largely were not. The Incredible Hulk did well, but by heavily adapting the character to make the story about Banner and illuminate all other super-powered characters to focus on a much more grounded story more closely resembling The Fugitive than Superman.

There are many shows that are successful because of their genre-based fans, like Buffy. But there is still a kind of celebration of camp implicit in that and other Joss Whedon shows, which is why they are viewed as "cult classic" instead of straight genre. But making a completely straight laced genre show virtually requires a non-genre fan base because the genre people are not all going to like it, and there aren't enough of us. As a genre fan, I am more critical of comic or SF films than most people - and I am not alone in that. SF and comic films and TV really need to get some accolades before I bother to go see how much the director bent my favorite fiction out of shape. Some of it has been great, like the Nolan Batman films, and some of it has been merely watchable due to good effects and actor charisma, like Iron Man - both of which had enormous budgets and were designed for broad appeal.

Media that appeals to genre lovers only appears to rarely be good for anyone, including those fans.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> Bruce Lee didn't have actual super powers, either. The point is that Batman is supposed to some sort of technology augmented ninja, not just a detective who dresses like Frank Costanza's divorce lawyer. Actually depicting unarmed combat that is good against armed criminals is not easy.
> 
> 
> I don't understand. If you make a great superhero (SF, fantasy) show or movie, it will be enjoyed by the base fans _and_ broader audiences. Make a low budget production and you'll only get a portion of the dedicated genre fans - the rest won't be pleased with the adaptation. The reason we even have superhero movies and TV is due to productions like Superman that showed that the genre can have mass appeal when it looks good. And Star Wars is probably the only reason that Star Trek didn't end with the animated series.



Lucas originally wanted to do a Flash  Gordon film. one wonders  what would have happed had he gotten to do that film instead of Star Wars.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> No, it isn't. People like to point to the simplistic or even occasionally silly sounding dialogue, but it really has no bearing on the quality of the story telling or the film's overall reception. The story itself is reasonable, contains no obvious plot holes or motivation problems, and traces it's pedigree to Kurosawa.
> 
> We can pick nits and try to re-write history, but you're talking about a film that was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Original Screenplay (Annie Hall won those instead). It did win 6 Emmy's, Golden Globes and Grammys. Critics loved the film and Ebert praised its "pure narrative". So while Star Wars is the contrarian SF fan's favorite punching bag, nearly everyone at the time treated it as GREAT filmmaking, including the story.
> 
> ...



Mario Bava was not talked about very much in American genre circles but he provided important inspiration for ALIEN, DEATH RACE 2000 and probably the slasher film. The more one focuses on the pre-blockbuster age and international film, the more one encounters Bava. Kurosawa only gets referenced because he satisfies the international non-European arthouse pedigree but Prince Valiant was a bigger inspiration on Star Wars than Kurosawa (Gary Kurtz acknowledged this in his last radio interview where he said the Jedi were based on medieval knights-not samurai as Lucas claimed).

Star Wars was essentially a remake of Prince Valiant-a Fox film from 1954. That film did have better dialogue (and James Mason). Compared to other sci fi films--like a film written by Nigel Kneale or Richard Matheson, Star Wars is horrendous. It has great visual style and innovative action fx scenes, but story wise there was little ambition to character or dialogue.
Annie Hall is an experimental art house film given a lot of artificial boosting. Interestingly it supposedly cost $4 million to make and grossed $34 million--while Smokey and the Bandit cost $4 million and made $300 million.
Interesting contrast between genres and the return. Yet the director of Smokey and the Bandit did not get to direct films so easily as Allen always did. I never met anyone rabid about Allen films but he always had funding without any problem.

If we were going to look at Star Wars from a historical cinematic perspective, the most important artist in the film is Ralph McQuarrie --just as there would be no ALIEN without HR Giger, there could be no Star Wars without McQuarrie. He provided the art design which was the main selling point for the film (Vader and the stormtroopers-and whoever designed the spaceships). Everything else was either taken from Prince Valiant or provided by the FX team.
R2D2 was strongly inspired by the robots in SILENT RUNNING for example.

But back to point--the fact that Star Wars was said to make SF mainstream meant a writer like Kneale was no longer needed because spectacle replaced writing.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> No, it isn't. People like to point to the simplistic or even occasionally silly sounding dialogue, but it really has no bearing on the quality of the story telling or the film's overall reception. The story itself is reasonable, contains no obvious plot holes or motivation problems, and traces it's pedigree to Kurosawa.
> 
> We can pick nits and try to re-write history, but you're talking about a film that was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Original Screenplay (Annie Hall won those instead). It did win 6 Emmy's, Golden Globes and Grammys. Critics loved the film and Ebert praised its "pure narrative". So while Star Wars is the contrarian SF fan's favorite punching bag, nearly everyone at the time treated it as GREAT filmmaking, including the story.
> 
> ...



*Planet of the Vampire* was made in 1965  and was quite low budgeted but  Brava managed to turn out a pretty decent film and decent look film  ,  that you don't find films film . This film is considered  one the inspirations for the 1979 film Alien . I think this one is Youtube.
*It The Terror From Beyond Space *1958  written by Science fiction writer  Jerome Bixby.  it's story line very closely parallels  the film Alien.   The creature  was played by stunt man / actor Ray Crash Corrigan  and the monster suite was too small for Corrigan  and certain movie scenes you see this . This was also his last acting gig,  Before that, he was known for being a B movie cowboy and he starred in the 1936 science fiction serial* Undersea Kingdom* playing a character not surprisingly  named Corrigan. He was not a terribly good actor  and Undersea Kingdom  which shows ample evidence of this . Years later The serial got the *Mystery Science 3000* Treatment.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> Mario Bava was not talked about very much in American genre circles but he provided important inspiration for ALIEN, DEATH RACE 2000 and probably the slasher film. The more one focuses on the pre-blockbuster age and international film, the more one encounters Bava. Kurosawa only gets referenced because he satisfies the international non-European arthouse pedigree but Prince Valiant was a bigger inspiration on Star Wars than Kurosawa (Gary Kurtz acknowledged this in his last radio interview where he said the Jedi were based on medieval knights-not samurai as Lucas claimed).
> 
> Star Wars was essentially a remake of Prince Valiant-a Fox film from 1954. That film did have better dialogue (and James Mason). Compared to other sci fi films--like a film written by Nigel Kneale or Richard Matheson, Star Wars is horrendous. It has great visual style and innovative action fx scenes, but story wise there was little ambition to character or dialogue.
> Annie Hall is an experimental art house film given a lot of artificial boosting. Interestingly it supposedly cost $4 million to make and grossed $34 million--while Smokey and the Bandit cost $4 million and made $300 million.
> ...





I enjoyed Star Wars because it was pure  escapism.  Its not great science ifction  , its' more in  the realm of fantasy.  In terms of movies special effects and Technology Lucs as a great innovator , that  is  beyond dispute and,  he and Steven Spielberg were both instrumen al in reviving the movie industry which  was not doing terribly welling the 1970's . Lucas didn't invent fighter ships flying through space  Shows like* UFO ,*1970 *Space 1999 *in 1975  and the Japanese  anime series Space Battleship Yamato ( *Star Blazers*)  preceded Star Wars in the regard by about 3 years.


----------



## Anthoney (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> Make a low budget production and you'll only get a portion of the dedicated genre fans - the rest won't be pleased with the adaptation.



I think "low budget" should be replaced with "crappy".


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

Anthoney said:


> I think "low budget" should be replaced with "crappy".



A skilled director / producer can make a low budget   film look and sound pretty good. Roger  Corman also comes to mind, he did some truly great and imaginative  B Pictures.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> He was not a terribly good actor  and Undersea Kingdom  got the *Mystery Science 3000* Treatment.


Mystery Science 3000 is part of that trend to knock the cinematic past which has picked up steam in recent times. I heard that Kurt Vonnegut met the hosts and they invited him to dinner but when they told him what they did on their show he said even bad filmmakers deserve respect for the hard work they put into their films and he declined the invitation. 
I linked to the article about the Bava film because the fact is that in the old days sci-fi and fantasy was not usually aimed at all audiences-but aimed at those who were really into it and didn't care as much if it was cheap (partly because the language of special effects had not advanced so they could tolerate the cheapness more--it depends on the individual whether they can tolerate it in the modern age but that's why I say there are other things in them that attract interest like the script or acting or some other factor).


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> A skilled director / producer can make a low budget   film look and sound pretty good. Roger  Corman also comes to mind, he did some truly great and imaginative  B Pictures.


Yeah this is what I mean-the cheapness is made up by Corman, Richard Matheson, etc.
With a film like Transformers you have a higher budget for FX but that positive is is negated by the input of Bay, Orci and Kurtzman among other things. It's not a win win.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> Yeah this is what I mean-the cheapness is made up by Corman, Richard Matheson, etc.
> With a film like Transformers you have a higher budget for FX but that positive is is negated by the input of Bay, Orci and Kurtzman among other things. It's not a win win.



The first  Transformers film wasn't bad and wasn't great, the Sequels really really went steadily downhill. Michael Bay should never have been allowed anywhere near that franchise. He is not a good director and certainly not good at story teller.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Shows like* UFO ,*1970 *Space 1999 *in 1975  and the Japanese  anime series Space Battleship Yamato ( *Star Blazers*)  preceded Star Wars in the regard by about 3 years.


Right the Andersons should be mentioned.
JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN.
It should be noted that Hollywood did not give any of these filmmakers a large budget (well ok Kubrick). They gave it to comedies or slice of life dramas with sad endings--CASTLE KEEP cost $8 million and only made $1 million? Did heads roll?).  Hammer got money from Hollywood for a number of films and they either had to pinch pennies by command or from their own stinginess. An example was One Million Years BC where Harryhausen wanted to use an experimental motion blur process but Hammer or Fox shot it down because of the time/cost.
They could have done a high budget Flash Gordon film in the 1960s but no one could have got the money for it.
As we pointed out before--DOC SAVAGE 1975 could have been a Raiders style film with the right people and support. It was not given adequate support.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> Right the Andersons should be mentioned.
> JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN.
> It should be noted that Hollywood did not give any of these filmmakers a large budget (well ok Kubrick). They gave it to comedies or slice of life dramas with sad endings--CASTLE KEEP cost $8 million and only made $1 million? Did heads roll?).  Hammer got money from Hollywood for a number of films and they either had to pinch pennies by command or from their own stinginess. An example was One Million Years BC where Harryhausen wanted to use an experimental motion blur process but Hammer or Fox shot it down because of the time/cost.
> They could have done a high budget Flash Gordon film in the 1960s but no one could have got the money for it.
> As we pointed out before--DOC SAVAGE 1975 could have been a Raiders style film with the right people and support. It was not given adequate support.



Ive seen the Doc Savage film They had the perfect actor in Ron Ely , he looked and he souned the part of Doc.  if the idiot running the studio had   had given George Pal a budget, that film would've been the beginning of a very lucrative and successful film Franchise.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

Bay is sure terrible at directing FX (I think he improved a little by the second). Orci and Kurtzman are horrible writers. The idea of having a futuristic map on the glasses of someone's grandfather would have been too ridiculous for Ed Wood.
I think the best Hollywood directors for FX scenes are Zemeckis, Verhoeven, and Cameron (but Cameron has hokey story sense). The other two are not FX experts like Cameron is but knew to use good  FX supervisors.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Ive seen the Doc Savage film They had the perfect actor in Ron Ely , he looked and he souned the part of Doc.  if the idiot running the studio had   had given George Pal a budget, that film would've been the beginning of a very lucrative and successful film Franchise.



The plane looked good, the opening couple of scenes were serious, and then  it got cheap and rather stupid. I don't believe they were following audience surveys or anything--no way--the studio brass hated the film-the idea of it-and when they realized what was being made they shot it down and added all the moron stuff. And I bet they did not care one iota that it lost money.
Too bad for Pal. I am sure he was not happy with what was forced on him. The Mexican in the babycrib and the guy getting a lobotomy and singing Christmas carols?
Uh yeah-that's always been a crowd pleaser gag.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> The plane looked good, the opening couple of scenes were serious, and then  it got cheap and rather stupid. I don't believe they were following audience surveys or anything--no way--the studio brass hated the film-the idea of it-and when they realized what was being made they shot it down and added all the moron stuff. And I bet they did not care one iota that it lost money.
> Too bad for Pal. I am sure he was not happy with what was forced on him. The Mexican in the babycrib and the guy getting a lobotomy and singing Christmas carols?
> Uh yeah-that's always been a crowd pleaser gag.



Don't forget the cheesy animated green snakes.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> Don't forget the cheesy animated green snakes.



That is where a really good FX supervisor could have improved the film a lot.
Imagine if those snakes were more like the Ark angels in Raiders.
Oh but that reminds me--I have read the biography by FX man Jim Danforth talking about his career in the 70s and he mentioned visiting George Pal while Doc Savage was being prepared and there had been plans for some kind of dinosaur in it or the follow up.
There was also a Conan-like film in development around 1976 with people riding around on giant lizards but there was a lot of animosity towards stop motion so it never proceeded.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 11, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> Mario Bava was not talked about very much in American genre circles but he provided important inspiration for ALIEN, DEATH RACE 2000 and probably the slasher film. The more one focuses on the pre-blockbuster age and international film, the more one encounters Bava. Kurosawa only gets referenced because he satisfies the international non-European arthouse pedigree but Prince Valiant was a bigger inspiration on Star Wars than Kurosawa (Gary Kurtz acknowledged this in his last radio interview where he said the Jedi were based on medieval knights-not samurai as Lucas claimed).
> 
> Star Wars was essentially a remake of Prince Valiant-a Fox film from 1954. That film did have better dialogue (and James Mason). Compared to other sci fi films--like a film written by Nigel Kneale or Richard Matheson, Star Wars is horrendous. It has great visual style and innovative action fx scenes, but story wise there was little ambition to character or dialogue.
> Annie Hall is an experimental art house film given a lot of artificial boosting. Interestingly it supposedly cost $4 million to make and grossed $34 million--while Smokey and the Bandit cost $4 million and made $300 million.
> ...


None of that changes the fact that Star Wars was, and continues to be, lauded by critics as excellent filmmaking. Scripts aren't films, the dialogue isn't the film. The film is the synthesis of plot, visuals, acting, dialogue, score, etc. If you think dialogue is what makes good SF, I suggest you should read the scripts of 2001, Alien and Bladerunner.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> None of that changes the fact that Star Wars was, and continues to be, lauded by critics as excellent filmmaking. Scripts aren't films, the dialogue isn't the film. The film is the synthesis of plot, visuals, acting, dialogue, score, etc. If you think dialogue is what makes good SF, I suggest you should read the scripts of 2001, Alien and Bladerunner.



Star Wars, 2001, and Bladerunner have all been savaged for their characterization, dialogue etc. so they were not considered perfect.
Especially at the time they were made-and that is significant since the critics around then would or should have been dazzled by the FX but not all them were. They were more interested in other things. Does anyone really think Poole or Bowman are interesting? Hal is more interesting.
Reportedly, 2001 didn't even make its money back for 10 years and Bladerunner was not a crowd pleaser either.
The fact is, without the fx people (and the music), those films are zero. You could not turn Bladerunner into a compelling classic noir because the dialogue is not noirish enough --the only characters with some gusto are Holden, Chew, and Bryant:

"This is Zhora. She's trained for an Off-World kick murder squad. Talk about Beauty and the Beast - she's both."


----------



## Star-child (Nov 11, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> A skilled director / producer can make a low budget   film look and sound pretty good. Roger  Corman also comes to mind, he did some truly great and imaginative  B Pictures.


You can make a low budget film about superheroes or spaceships, just not one that actually shows any real action by either.



KGeo777 said:


> Star Wars, 2001, and Bladerunner have all been savaged for their characterization, dialogue etc. so they were not considered perfect.
> Especially at the time they were made-and that is significant since the critics around then would or should have been dazzled by the FX but not all them were. They were more interested in other things. Does anyone really think Poole or Bowman are interesting? Hal is more interesting.
> Reportedly, 2001 didn't even make its money back for 10 years and Bladerunner was not a crowd pleaser either.
> The fact is, without the fx people (and the music), those films are zero. You could not turn Bladerunner into a compelling classic noir because the dialogue is not noirish enough --the only characters with some gusto are Holden, Chew, and Bryant:
> ...


Again, that poor dialogue does not make them anything but excellent films, lauded by critics. I know this is a writing website, but if you are evaluating films purely on their writing, you're missing the point of the medium. Who are these critics 'savaging' these films? 

And who says we need to find Poole interesting instead of HAL? Specific people don't have to be the most important part of a film.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> Again, that poor dialogue does not make them anything but excellent films. I know this is a writing website, but if you are evaluating films purely on their writing, you're missing the point of the medium.
> 
> And who says we need to find Poole interesting instead of HAL? Specific people don't have to be the most important part of a film.



But it gets back to what you said-you said realistic sets and fx made SF films more appealing to people because they didn't need suspension of disbelief but it also means that for those who do care about story and dialogue--they are necessarily as satisfied and since these films have been criticized for character and dialogue etc--the suspension of disbelief is not total. In other words you cant satisfy all of the people all of the time. Those who do care about the FX will be satisfied, but those who expect more will not be.
I thought the FX in Transformers 2007 was awful-not because the FX people did a bad job-but because it was choreographed in such a way to avoid showing it in the best light-and on top of that, it had awful characters and story. At least with Star Wars I can admire the humor or something, Transformers sucked, no matter how realistic the robots looked.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> You can make a low budget film about superheroes or spaceships, just not one that actually shows any real action by either.
> 
> 
> Again, that poor dialogue does not make them anything but excellent films. I know this is a writing website, but if you are evaluating films purely on their writing, you're missing the point of the medium.
> ...



*Battle Beyond the Stars *was made for 2 million dollars  in 1980, It looks decent , had  good ship to ship battle scenes.   It had a good  screenplay by  John Sayles  and yes Im well aware that It was  essentially *The Seven Samurais In Outer Space . *Bit overall its a good film. And yes im well aware  that the Villains space ship was a recycled  prop from Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 11, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> But it gets back to what you said-you said realistic sets and fx made SF films more appealing to people because they didn't need suspension of disbelief but it also means that for those who do care about story and dialogue--they are necessarily as satisfied and since these films have been criticized for character and dialogue etc--the suspension of disbelief is not total. In other words you cant satisfy all of the people all of the time. Those who do care about the FX will be satisfied, but those who expect more will not be.
> I thought the FX in Transformers 2007 was awful-not because the FX people did a bad job-but because it was choreographed in such a way to avoid showing it in the best light-and on top of that, it had awful characters and story. At least with Star Wars I can admire the humor or something, Transformers sucked, no matter how realistic the robots looked.


The quality of dialogue is not a dependent variable of the FX budget. They have nothing to do with each other.

The reason those films have sparse or simplistic dialogue is that is all they need to have to tell their stories. Great monologues and touching interpersonal moments aren't more realistic, unless you believe real life resembles theater. There is no suspension of disbelief for characters that are no.more sophisticated than their audience.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> There is no suspension of disbelief for characters that are no.more sophisticated than their audience.


But as I said, there are older SF films with cheaper FX and yet people compliment the stories acting etc, so it is not either or.   Some people will watch 2001 and say they like the music but the characters bore them--that they have no emotional attachment to them like in other movies with less innovative fx.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 11, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> But as I said, there are older SF films with cheaper FX and yet people compliment the stories acting etc, so it is not either or.   Some people will watch 2001 and say they like the music but the characters bore them--that they have no emotional attachment to them like in other movies with less innovative fx.


I already pointed out that cost and script quality weren't mutually exclusive.

Not does dialogue quality contribute to realism. Which is what we are talking about.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> Not does dialogue quality contribute to realism. Which is what we are talking about.



For some suspension of disbelief is easy so a cardboard set is not a deal-breaker. For others it is. But for some poor dialogue can undermine suspension of disbelief also--it is not an absolute for either. Whether it is realistic is not so much the issue as being entertained, drawn into the story, etc.
For some bad or uninteresting dialogue and characters can be enough to break suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 11, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> For some suspension of disbelief is easy so a cardboard set is not a deal-breaker. For others it is. But for some poor dialogue can undermine suspension of disbelief also--it is not an absolute for either. Whether it is realistic is not so much the issue as being entertained, drawn into the story, etc.
> For some bad or uninteresting dialogue and characters can be enough to break suspension of disbelief.


That just doesn't appear to be an issue fans, critics or movie goers have with those beloved films.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

I think we've gone way off topic on this one.


----------



## tinkerdan (Nov 11, 2019)

Uh huh


BAYLOR said:


> I think we've gone way off topic on this one.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> I already pointed out that cost and script quality weren't mutually exclusive.
> 
> Not does dialogue quality contribute to realism. Which is what we are talking about.



What are your thoughts on unlikable movie characters . Who do you think are the most unlikable and why? Thats what this topic really about.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

tinkerdan said:


> Uh huh



Time to get it back on topic.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 11, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> What are your thoughts on unlikable movie characters . Who do you think are the most unlikable and why? Thats what this topic really about.


Didn't I already talk about Jar Jar?


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> Didn't I already talk about Jar Jar?



The Problem is , this topic has drifted off into a whole new Tangent.

And for the record , I absolutely despised Jar Jar Binks . He was a  completely useless and otherwise annoying character  who was probity thrown in there for comic relief of which he failed  even on that score.  And here  in this  thread , Im not going get into why I cannot stand the Star Wars prequels  that Lucas should have let someone else write and direct.  if you want to ague the merits or lack there of  in the prequels,  there is topic thread in the Star Wars section for that t Ive already done.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 11, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> if you want to ague the merits or lack there of in the prequels, there is topic thread in the Star Wars section for that t Ive already done.


No, haven't even mentioned the prequels here.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> No, haven't even mentioned the prequels here.



They're a bit of a sore point with me.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

Star-child said:


> That just doesn't appear to be an issue fans, critics or movie goers have with those beloved films.


Only to those who don't critique them.
Just as the same holds true for older films.
Some don't care at all about the sets which is why Mario Bava has books written about him.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

KGeo777 said:


> Only to those who don't critique them.
> Just as the same holds true for older films.
> Some don't care at all about the sets which is why Mario Bava has books written about him.




KGeo , apologies , but I  think we need to keep this topic on track ?


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2019)

Ok I think it's all self-evident anyway so I won't say any more even if addressed about it.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Nov 12, 2019)

Star-child said:


> Didn't I already talk about Jar Jar?



for the record I think your posts on genre upthread are well-observed, intelligent and far more stimulating that the OP question.

(although I have to admit a soft spot for Jar Jar.)

pH


----------



## olive (Nov 12, 2019)

Every character in Sex and the City, esp. Carrie Bradshaw. That character is responsible of dumbing down of an entire generation(s) of women everywhere around the world. 

Ally Mcbeal.


----------



## Rodders (Nov 15, 2019)

After recently rewatching Zach Snyder's excellent Watchman film. The Comedian was a very unlikeable movie character, (well portrayed, by the way).

A thug and a rapist under the guise of a good guy.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 15, 2019)

olive said:


> Every character in Sex and the City, esp. Carrie Bradshaw. That character is responsible of dumbing down of an entire generation(s) of women everywhere around the world.
> 
> Ally Mcbeal.




Sex in the City  yes , _al_l the characters  were very unlikeable in the series and the film.  I  started to really  dislike  Ally Mcbeal in season 2.

Bonzo in* Enders Game*.  An egoistical jackass.


----------



## Vince W (Nov 15, 2019)

Rodders said:


> After recently rewatching Zach Snyder's excellent Watchman film. The Comedian was a very unlikeable movie character, (well portrayed, by the way).
> 
> A thug and a rapist under the guise of a good guy.


Pretty much all the characters in Watchman were unlikeable. But that goes back to Alan Moore really.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 18, 2019)

Vince W said:


> Pretty much all the characters in Watchman were unlikeable. But that goes back to Alan Moore really.



I didn't care for any other characters in V for Vendetta either.


----------



## Starbeast (Nov 18, 2019)

I didn't like ANYONE in the 2015 film, _Jurrasic World_. Within the first half hour, I couldn't stand any character. *I wanted everyone eaten.* This was the movie that completely turned me away from the series.


----------



## Vince W (Nov 18, 2019)

Starbeast said:


> I didn't like ANYONE in the 2015 film, _Jurrasic World_. Within the first half hour, I couldn't stand any character. *I wanted everyone eaten.* This was the movie that completely turned me away from the series.


My feelings precisely. I hated that film so much I've given up on the entire franchise.


----------



## olive (Nov 18, 2019)

Spoiler: The Real Disaster



From a realistic point in the story itself, they should all have been dino food before the 'disaster' started. Humans training raptors? That was the real disaster in the movie. It's offensive. In the end they will get out and eat people, that's why we are watching it.



The last one was worse. I'm not really watching them anyway. I am just looking at dinosaurs. Keep hoping they will make one that will represent them realistically.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 24, 2019)

Barton Fink  an arrogant , and intellectually pretentious  jerk.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 3, 2020)

Carter J Burke. from* Aliens   *Seemed like a good guy in beginning but gradually you see what a villain  he really is.


----------



## Guttersnipe (Jul 14, 2020)

Hesher from the 2010 film of the same name. Others find him funny precisely because he's a jerk, but I'll always hate him, and I'll never look at Joseph Gordon-Levitt the same way again. 

Annie Wilkes from Misery (I've only seen the movie). Any writer's nightmare.

Amon Gött from Schindler's List, who was obviously a real person, but Ralph Fiennes did a good job with portraying him. All Nazis were evil, but there was such a focus on him that I can't help but hate him above most. 

Tommy DeVito from Goodfellas, another real person, again portrayed masterfully. Evidently, he was worse in real life.


----------



## MikeAnderson (Jul 14, 2020)

Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor from _Batman V. Superman._

Eisenberg's a tremendous actor, but he was just all sorts of wrong for this role. His portrayal of everybody's favorite premature balding megalomaniac came off as way too neurotic, whiny, and flat out undignified at times.

it's especially frustrating considering they could have had *BRYAN FREAKIN' CRANSTON *play the role.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 14, 2020)

Jessie Eisenberg would been the perfect actor to play Batman's nemesis Scarecrow.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 7, 2020)

Starbeast said:


> I didn't like ANYONE in the 2015 film, _Jurrasic World_. Within the first half hour, I couldn't stand any character. *I wanted everyone eaten.* This was the movie that completely turned me away from the series.



I agree with that sentiment.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 7, 2020)

reiver33 said:


> Bond should be a thug in a suit with no high-tech chicanery. The current incarnation has probably been closest to that image.



I like Daniel Craig's Bond.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 5, 2020)

The Entire Corleone clan  in the *The Godfathe*r.


----------



## KGeo777 (Oct 5, 2020)

*The Godfather *novel is awful! I can't believe what a trashy sleazy  work it is, given the reputation.


----------



## wagtail (Oct 5, 2020)

Alex in *Clockwork Orange*.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 5, 2020)

wagtail said:


> Alex in *Clockwork Orange*.



Yes , Alex was an absolute monster .


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 5, 2020)

*Glengarry Glen Ross * 1992 . There wasn't one single likable redeemable character in that whole miserable film . It rival *St Elmos Fire *in that regard.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 14, 2020)

Allie Fox *The Mosquito Cost.     *An absolutely miserable  and vile human being   who uprooted  whole family and took them to live the jungles of South America ansawsy from civilization . He put his whole family though hell and caused  his own downfall  all  because of his  misguided principles  and misbegotten beliefs about the world around him.  Reverend  Spellgood a  bigoted , smarmy , condescending , religious zealot  every bit as vile and miserable  as Allie Fox.


----------



## AE35Unit (Oct 14, 2020)

Napoleon Dynamite. Couldn't bear to watch past a certain point


----------



## JJewel (Oct 14, 2020)

I never liked Luke Skywalker, he almost reminded me of John Boy Walton. I always wanted John Boy to be a rapist or a serial Killer cause he was so bland!.. something truly bad really. Like Luke whos only crime in youth was to lust after his sister.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 26, 2020)

*The Man Who Wasn't There*  2001  Ed Crane. A  user ,  blackmailer and  murderer ,  a  man completely devoid of any kind of  decency or  conscience.  A total sociopath.


----------



## Narkalui (Oct 26, 2020)




----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 26, 2020)

*Fargo  *  Marge Gunderson  a thoroughly  annoying, aggravating character and unlikable character.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 7, 2020)

*The Back Hole*   Dr Hans Reinhardt  got exactly what he deserved.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 27, 2020)

Katherine Parker  in the film Working Girl.  A conniving, selfish and throughly miserable human being.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 23, 2021)

Dr Louise Banks  in the movie *The Arrival* .


----------



## Don (Apr 23, 2021)

reiver33 said:


> Bond should be a thug in a suit with no high-tech chicanery. The current incarnation has probably been closest to that image.










						Timothy Dalton - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				


​A fan of the literary character, often seen re-reading and referring to the novels on set, Dalton determined to approach the role and play truer to the original character described by Fleming. His 007, therefore, came across as a reluctant agent who did not always enjoy the assignments he was given...​​Unlike Moore, who always seems to be in command, Dalton's Bond sometimes looks like a candidate for the psychiatrist's couch – a burned-out killer who may have just enough energy left for one final mission. That was Fleming's Bond – a man who drank to diminish the poison in his system, the poison of a violent world with impossible demands.... his is the suffering Bond.​​— Steven Jay Rubin writes in The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopaedia (1995).​​Some modern critics have compared Dalton favourably to Daniel Craig. The Guardian wrote that "they want Bond to be closer to the original Ian Fleming character. They want him to be grittier, darker and less jokey. What they really want, it seems, is to have Dalton back." Dalton himself has claimed that the Bond films starring Daniel Craig are "believable" in the way he wanted his own Bond films to be ...​


----------



## soulsinging (Apr 23, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> *Glengarry Glen Ross * 1992 . There wasn't one single likable redeemable character in that whole miserable film . It rival *St Elmos Fire *in that regard.


I've worked in sales and the number of people there that worship this film and apparently completely missed the satire is both unsurprising and thoroughly depressing.


----------



## Guttersnipe (Apr 23, 2021)

Marla Grayson in I Care a Lot and Amy Dunne in Gone Girl. Both played by Rosamund Pike. I give her props for angering me so.


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 23, 2021)

Don said:


> Timothy Dalton - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Having read a couple of bond books I can honestly say there is quite a difference between the screen and book incarnation. Closest was probably a cross between Connery and Moore. But even more disparate is the choice of cars! Bond had an old beat up Bentley that was rather unkempt and hand painted in parts!


----------



## KGeo777 (Apr 23, 2021)

James Bond in the movies was the knight errant--and people like that romantic adventure image. It sells. For some reason Hollywood has never peddled it much (Errol Flynn in Robin Hood being one of the exceptions--totally unflawed, gregarious successful character).

There's not a lot of that kind of character in mainstream movies--even in the 1960s, and certainly not today.
They say Men's Adventure Fiction has been enjoying a nostalgic revival--I suspect partly because there's so little like it now. Nothing like it now.

And as Michael Caine observed, his younger leading men got shorter and shorter over the years.
6'2 used to be the standard, but they keep getting shorter.

James Bond, Spider-man, Batman, Superman, they all get shorter.

The Incredible Shrinking Leading Man?


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 5, 2021)

KGeo777 said:


> James Bond in the movies was the knight errant--and people like that romantic adventure image. It sells. For some reason Hollywood has never peddled it much (Errol Flynn in Robin Hood being one of the exceptions--totally unflawed, gregarious successful character).
> 
> There's not a lot of that kind of character in mainstream movies--even in the 1960s, and certainly not today.
> They say Men's Adventure Fiction has been enjoying a nostalgic revival--I suspect partly because there's so little like it now. Nothing like it now.
> ...



Bond in the book was not a pleasant man at all. Band in the movies , charming but still not pleasant. In Goldfinger , that game that he pulled on Goldfinger with the cards got  sister Jill and Till Masterson killed.


----------



## Toby Frost (Sep 5, 2021)

Bond always seemed daft to me, a Mary Sue character whose world was rigged to favour him. Directors might as well expect me to relate to a unicorn. He would make a pretty good villain, though - IIRC, Alan Moore used a thinly-disguised Bond as a villain in one of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen books.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 5, 2021)

Toby Frost said:


> Bond always seemed daft to me, a Mary Sue character whose world was rigged to favour him. Directors might as well expect me to relate to a unicorn. He would make a pretty good villain, though - IIRC, Alan Moore used a thinly-disguised Bond as a villain in one of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen books.



When you read him in book from . Bond is easy to dislike.


----------



## Vince W (Sep 5, 2021)

I'm not sure Bond, as Fleming wrote him, was ever meant to be liked. Connery understood that. The studios altered the character to make him more likeable starting with Lazenby.


----------



## KGeo777 (Sep 5, 2021)

Fleming supposedly said he wasn't meant to be liked. He was a government killing machine.
But you know, I was researching names and quite a number of western names mean sword or spear. The name "Roger" in fact, means "spear."
I think the expectation of a warrior story is something genetic and lingers on in public consciousness.


----------



## Rodders (Sep 6, 2021)

I really thought that Timothy Dalton tried to inject the element of Bond s the stone cold killer.


----------

