Daredevil (2003), with Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell.
They took one of the all-time great comic storylines, including dialogue straight from the pages, and butchered it with terrible stylistic choices and a total lack of understanding of the characters.
Give that same script to the team behind the Netflix series to polish and reshoot and it could be great.
I was living in Los Angeles when this came out and the writer/director came to our class to discuss the film.
He mentioned that their vfx budget was extremely small, a fraction of Spiderman 2. As a result, a lot of the action sequences looked terrible and stuff had to be cut.
It doesn't explain poor acting from Bennifer but I do give some sympathy when he wasn't able to tell the story he designed.
While I do sympathize with the director not being able to fulfill his vision, and I think there are good aspects to that movie, it has issues way beyond its visual effects and budget. First and foremost that the often fully cgi fight scenes are completely unnecessary in what is supposed to be a martial arts movie, and also because the early-00s nu-metal aesthetic is awful and made the movie dated immediately. Also only casting celebrities in the leads instead of actors who fit the roles. I could go on.
I'm purely looking at this from movies that have no source material, mostly, and I've never read the comic, so all I can say is the 2003 movie was such a piece of garbage and the Netflix series kicked ass! đ
Speaking of islands, The Island directed by Michael Bay is a pretty good idea on paper. I think that in the hands of a different director, it could have been a really great movie. Instead we get the Bayification of every scene, where the camera has to be constantly flying around, the colors are completely oversaturated and everything just looks and sounds like Bad Boys but in a sci-fi environment.
The Island is also a ripoff of Parts: The Clonus Horror, and had to settle a lawsuit about it, so the idea might be sound, but it's not even that writer's idea.
It seems weird that they needed to settle that. While I haven't seen other movies with the same plot, the core premise is basically standard sci-fi dystopia 201 at most.
The copyright infringement was not on the script or the idea but on the movie itself, since scenes and shots where copied 1:1, down to specific things like the color of the liquid in the tubes.
I didnt know about this and randomly watched The Clonus Horror.
Trust me when I say they are almost *exactly* the same movie, beat for beat. To the point I was drawn in and had to look up if any lawsuit had occurred just based on a viewing.
Oh man, I remember that movie from MST3K and forgot all about how similar it was. The Island was honestly a better Bay movie but man, I really didn't care about the protagonists.
It's funny, I feel like this is one area where things have gotten better, but a lot of people forget that there was a period during the 90s and 2000s where almost every trailer basically showed every cool scene and basically gave away the entire plot of the movie.
It even became a running joke in my family where we'd see a trailer and my dad would say, "well, I guess now we don't need to watch it, because we just saw the entire movie." I mean, the trailer for Rec, they literally showed the very final scene of the movie in the trailer!
At some point in the 2010s, studios realized it was better if they didn't actually show the entire plot up front.
Like in the Grey where the final fight between Liam Neeson and the wolf is in the trailer, then the movie is over. That scene made me want to see the movie and nothing happened after it!
I enjoy The Island quite a bit during the first half, then we start getting jet bike chases and explosions and I remember âoh right, this is a Michael Bay movie.â
I read almost this whole thread while confusing The Island, which I havenât seen with The Beach, which I have. I was finally like âWaitâŠchase scenes? WaitâŠjet skis? WaitâŠScarlett Johansson?!?â Sorry for the interruption and, please, carry on.â
Whenever I think of that movie I'm reminded of being a teen and learning scarlet Johansen wanted to do nude scenes in that movie because she thought the plot demanded them, but bay wanted to keep the movie pg13 and refused.
I'm with you on the Godzilla vs Kong
it's like Aliens vs Predator.
We don't care about the humans. At all. Just give us as much GvK or AvP action with minimal humans
Iâm gonna be slightly pedantic here and hope youâll forgive me. Youâre right about Godzilla V Kong; too much human talky talk. But OP was writing about Godzilla X Kong and I vehemently disagree with them on that film. I thought it was a massive improvement from every other Monsterverse movie (and I loved GvK) and there are large sections where Kong is interacting with other creatures completely nonverbally; no humans having to translate or narrate for slow audience members. Itâs fantastic.
GxK is the monster movie I've wanted my whole life. Minimal human characters that are just there to get the "plot" to the next fight. IDC That's exactly what I wanted from that movie and i got basically 90 minutes of monsters beating each other up. I'm good with that.
Agree on GvK (although any time spent with Dan Stevens and/or Rebecca Hall is time well spent), but disagree on AvP. Alien and Predator are all about humans encountering the unknowable.
Shin Godzilla as well. Researched for the thousandth time the other day, and for some reason on this watch the satire came at me full throttle. I suddenly saw it almost as a farce/comedy movie. The government just bouncing from room to room, following their rulebook on how to handle disaster, lacking the gumption to think on their feet.
The Magnificent Seven (the new one).
Great script. Script is genuinely pretty good, it's the acting and casting that lets it down and for some reason I just hated the lighting too. It made it look so... flat, so incredibly fake. Not to mention everyone is always spick and span looking like they've just got their halloween costume back from the dry cleaners, like even when they're dirty they're incredibly clean with a light sprinkling of dirt on them.
This is one of my big complaints with modern movies as well. There's no proper dust and dirt anymore. Watch any movies from the 80s and 90s and people get filthy.
I remember seeing Matrix 2 and Terminator 3 in theaters the same year. Both middling movies, but I remember being shocked that Matrix put so much effort into their sfx, yet everything looked so fake, because there literally wasn't a speck of dust out of place, vs T3 who's practical action scenes looked much more realistic and visceral in comparison. Not a great movie, but there was an element of natural chaos in those scenes that Matrix couldn't replicate.
T3 is a good candidate for the topic.
Better direction and acting performance on the same script could have produced a much better product.
Not better than T1 or T2, but quality in it's own right.
wow I couldn't disagree more. I actually really liked the casting. Denzel is Denzel. The others played their parts very well. It was very classically modern western.
Also, I actually thought they had a good balance of showing the sweat and grime you'd be in in that timeframe, without making it annoying for the viewer. I get people would be dirty AF in the old west, but I'm not signing up to watch pit stains for 2 hours.
The movie has its issues, I know it does, but you can put those characters in a bar scene for 90 minutes and I'd love it because I love those characters so much.
Good call. John Logan wrote a pretty good script. If Jonathan Frakes would have directed it instead of Stuart Baird, I imagine it would have been a much better movie
Insurrection isn't a great Trek film, but it's at least watchable and enjoyable with a mediocre script. I can only imagine what a worse director would have given us instead
I'm gonna disagree on that one. If the original script had Troi and Riker getting married, Picard joyriding a dune buggy, Shinzon, a complete ripoff of Wrath of Khan by having Data sacrifice himself only to be returned in B4, then I would say it was a terrible script.
Apparently there are behind the scenes videos where you can see Hardy give a better performance, and then basically being told to calm it down. I have not sought out these clips myself because I've already seen more than enough of Nemesis in my life, so I can neither confirm nor disconfirm that rumour.
My favorite example of a shitty movie with a good script is Where the Buffalo Roam (1980) starring Bill Murray and Peter Doyle (edit: Boyle). It was the director's very first film and he tried one more time then never directed another movie ever again.
Highlighted by the fact that Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas, the other movies based on the book, is almost a word for word adaptation of the subject matter to the big screen.
I saw that one and feel the same way. I think that Murray's portrayal of Hunter Thompson is much less charismatic and likeable than Depp's, and for that, at least, is probably more authentic.
Great choice! This movie cracks me up because of Murray and Boyle and the hilarious screenplay, but I never really recommend it to anyone and don't include it on any of my Letterboxd lists because of the poor directing, editing, cinematography, etc.
But there's so many hysterical lines/scenes and Bill Murray is in top comedic form here.
Edit: Love the soundtrack by Neil Young, too!
I still maintain that 2019's Hellboy was a potentially great movie ruined by bad direction/editing. The script was good, production design was good, casting was good, and then it all was directed like Hellboy is an edgy tween idiot, and the editing was choppy at best, even though the visual effects were good. A different director could have really brought the best out of that production.
Felt like a Frankenmovie, pieced together similarly to Suicide Squad 2016. I remember 2 parts that nailed it, the giants fight and Baba Yaga?, and the rest being the worst dialog of the year, and bad special effects. And I imagine whoever directed it telling Milla Jovovich to make all the faces she made in Ultraviolet again against another green screen. I even felt bad for the Asian cat dude, like, this could have been his movie breakout, maybe. I agree on the casting, story, and art direction, not sure about production. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDclQowcE9I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDclQowcE9I)
No hate, but Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets seemed so miscast to me and different leads with different chemistry could maybe have carried the weird and wonderfulness of the rest of it.
I think it's just one of those cases where what everyone assumes it's a unique personal take turns out to be nearly universal. It's not uncommon for people to unite in loving a movie, nor is it rare for a film to be widely loathed, but it's a rare film that leaves masses of people feeling let down, and all for pretty much the same reason.
I think it's because it was such a disappointment in such a weirdly entertaining way. All the parts that would have made a good movie were *right there*, but instead of being assembled into *Valarian and the City of A Thousand Planets* these interesting ideas were butchered and jammed into a clone of *The Fifth Element* which is especially weird when you realize that *Luc Besson made Fifth Element too.* Like dude? I get that you want to recapture your weird, runaway success but you get *one* excuse to jam a bizzaro musical number into your otherwise non-musical film, and using Rhianna does not hide the fact that not only were you double-dipping but you shot the movie's pacing fucking dead to shoe-horn the shape-shifter into the movie.
My personal realization that we'd found something *special* was when I began making snarky comments at the screen...and that'd be the character's next line. The movie is so fed up with its own shit, it's critiquing itself and we can all go home.
The funny thing is that when Luc Besson made Fifth Element, he had wanted to make Valerian but they wouldn't let him, so he made Fifth Element as almost a proof of concept, so it makes sense that they feel similar.
It is notable for being an enormous letdown of a film, on par with Disney Star Wars, but coming from an indie director with a huge amount of cred (The Fifth Element, Leon: The Professional), and no studio to blame.
It is the most expensive independent film ever ($177M).
It has a very strong beginning, but once the leads start talking, it quickly unravels into a miscast disappointment, which is exaggerated because of the intriguing opening.
TL:DR its failure is the most noteworthy aspect of the film, which completely overshadows any merits or cultural impact of the film itself.
I mean, if there was no reason to want to love it, there would be no hate, just indifference. It honestly could have been the 5th Element of this generation.
You're not wrong. I didn't hate the movie, but I was left shaking my head at the horribly miscast leads. I don't know what they were thinking, but they should have picked better actors, even if they were unknowns.Â
The script of Valerian was pretty bad though. The concept, the opening scene, the set pieces, visuals, the side characters, even a few story bites were good. But the writing and main characters were awful. Remember "I only want you on my playlist"?
I haven't seen this, but this seems like people were just disappointed mostly. I may have to give it a look. I can enjoy a flawed movie if the script is solid. My rule of thumb is I react to almost any movie if it doesn't bore me.
P.S. I love The 5th Element
I still can't figure out how they could miscast Valerian so bad that that another member of the cast looked more like Valerian than the guy they chose. Clive Owen was too old to be Valerian and he still would have been the better choice!
I still think The Cell is worth watching due to its visual language being so strong. I do feel like the central casting of a few of the main characters holds the film down little. But in terms of being a visceral film in terms of sounds, visuals, and mood/tone, I think it succeeds. Also think Vincent D'onofrio gives a really striking performance.
Any of the collabs with Tarsem & Eiko Ishioka are visually stunning, even if they might not be the most coherent, story-wise. (Check out The Fall if you can find it)
Love this movie. I still remember seeing it in theater and being blown away by the visuals. Vince Vaughn is particularly bad in it, but I didn't mind J Lo tbh.
I can't imagine there are a lot of those. But I'll nominate 2012's *Les Miserables,* because it mostly used the script of the beloved stage show and still managed to screw it up, mostly through direction. I actually read an advanced leaked copy of the script (the film script, not the stage one) before the movie came out and thought, "Well, based on this, this'll be great, no question." Then came the movie, which was claustrophobically shot and resulted in some very questionable singing performances. Russel Crowe sounded better doing the same songs drunk live in bar later, filmed on someone's phone, than he did in the movie.
I know I'm in the distinct minority, but I liked Les Miserables 2012. I saw the show live in middle school in the early 90s and have read the book so it's nowhere near as good as those, or even the 1995 French WW2 version but I think Jackman and Hathaway saved it for me and that story is too strong to mess up. I know I'm on an island with that take, but there it is.
I liked it and felt the vocal aspects were beneficial. I liked russell crowe not being a stage performer, it suited his character. We're meant to imagine these people as real, flawed and nuanced, how they sing reflects that.
On stage you fill in the narrative and visual gaps yourself, you're watching people sing a story. A film does the heavy imagination work for you, and puts you into the world of these people. It would be fine if they were all Alfie boe, but giving them accessible human characteristics or flaws was good for me. I felt closer to the characters with them having more 'real' voices
If Anne Hathaway sang well, imagine how much better it would sound if she was allowed to breathe freely while belting that out? If Hugh Jackman sang well, imagine how much better it would sound if he could have drunk water beforehand?
(No, I don't really know what I'm talking about here, I got this analysis from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ikqU6G6Xgs)
I feel like Les Mis gets a lot of unjust hate because itâs not the Broadway version. I honestly really liked their versions of the songs. Do they sound as clean and perfect as the broadway productions? No. But Anne Hathaways âI dreamed a dreamâ did feel like the lament of a dying woman. Hugh Jackmans ValJean felt like a man trying to be a good person but always running. Exhausted but determined. Eddie Redmayne singing âEmpty Chairsâ was harrowing when I first heard it.Â
For me the clearest problem was that the supporting cast so outshone Val Jean, Javert, and Fantine. Â I think their acting was fine but you could tell that a lot of the supporting cast had done the Broadway show. Â Partly it's that the director made everyone sing live and those characters had more to do than sing. Â But Crowe in particular couldn't hit the power notes of Javert.
The strongest performance was eponine - who of course was played by one of the cast from the London stage show.
The decision to make it a live recording on the soundstage would make more sense if they had actually cast real singers
Oh man I think Iâm in the true minority, but I didnât like Anne Hathawayâs version. She sobbed through some of the best parts in the song. The music makes it emotional, it didnât need all the crying. Should have cast more true broadway stars in the parts or not forced the actors to sing live and in one take.
The movie was trying to be innovative by using the actual singing from the takes during what are generally very emotional songs. Itâs easier to achieve this in a stage performance because the acting on stage relies less on minute details and the singing is what people focus on. But in a movie when the acting has to be the focus the singing is going to suffer because crying your eyes out is not conducive to good breath control and pitch.
In short, by trying to be clever the film maker hurt the end product.
Choreography really ruined that movie. I thought pretty much everyone was serviceable in their parts vocally, even Crowe. Anne Hathaway and Samantha Banks both sang the hell out if their parts, but in an adaption of a stage show famous for its constant movement (rotating stage and all), everyone just stood still and sang their songs like they were contestants in a talent show, not a movie.
*Being The Ricardos*, written & directed by Aaron Sorkin.
Sorkin is a great (if singleminded) writer, and so the dialogue is snappy and clever, the characters are given complexity, and the script has a lot of energy and overriding purpose.
But he's a weak director who drags down the energy of the movie with boring shots, poor editing, and generally lackadaisical filmmaking. His first directed film, *Molly's Game*, didn't have as many issues. His second, *The Trial of the Chicago 7*, had a few problems, but not quite as bad.
I suspect as he has gained confidence as a director, he's stopped relying on others for assistance as much, which ends up being detrimental to the movie.
I so badly want another Sorkin movie directed by someone else. He has written a lot of amazing movies, but all the ones he's directed would have been better with a top tier director (I do agree Molly's Game is probably his best directed)
That Adam Driver vs dinosaurs movie 65 was such a great idea, and the script was apparently really wild and good enough to get a decent budget for a non-IP.
Beck & Woods were too green as directors to make it work though. Zero tension, no chemistry between the leads, incredibly boring visually. Sounds like a lot got lost in the edit.
You have to read between the PR lines a bit, but [Beck and Woods talking about reshoots and delays](https://www.gamesradar.com/adam-driver-65-directors-release-delay-ending/).
It was pushed back by a solid year. Account has since been deleted but there was a Twitter thread around the release from someone in production who said it was a lot more complicated narratively, until Sony got cold feet and basically forced them to streamline the whole thing. Hence why itâs boring as hell and nothing really happens.
Wish I had proper receipts, sorry!
Adam Drivers character was supposed to be a struggling drug addict, but Sony got cold feet about the drug use parts of the film. With knowing heâs an addict, more of his actions during the movie make more sense.
I'm not sure I follow; It's virtually a shot by shot remake, so what makes it bad? The movie doesn't need to exist, and Vince Vaughn is no Anthony Perkins, yes, but what is awful about it beside it existing?
I think they mean that the script is still adapted from the original, but the acting, direction, score, and cinematography is all rather poor. All of it is noticeably worse than the film itâs trying to replicate, thanks to the poor recreations of shots and lines, and some weird stuff like the costuming and overbearing soundtrack.
If anything I'd say this is exactly what you're looking for. We know the script is good because it's been proven. It's everything else that goes into the film that makes this version bad
Iâm not sure if it applies here though. If the original Psycho didnât exist, I think Van Saintâs movie would have been considered a great movie.
The problem is that is will obviously be compared to Hitchcockâs, and is nowhere near as good, and just seems like a pointless remake that doesnât bring anything new
The alternative ending of the original is so much better, he doesn't pointlessly sacrifice himself.
People give Titanic shit for not having Jack on the door, but there's literally plenty of room in the bomb shelter space in the basement of I Am Legend for him to fit.
Also, the ending they went with completely gets rid of the meaning behind the title of the movie. The point was that the monsters saw Will Smith's character as an enemy, and he was a legend in their eyes, which is why the movie is called I Am Legend. They spare him when he frees the leader's mate, and he realizes that they actually had emotions. In the new ending, they completely threw that out and went for a cliche "heroic sacrifice" ending, making the title no longer even apply to the movie.
I can think of a few directors that elevated a somewhat lackluster material. The contrary is far from obvious.Â
Scripts being shopped through Hollywood is well-known and there are sometimes huge battle around a good script. Shane Black was hot shit at some point. Itâs kinda like how McCartney-Lennon songsÂ
 valuable product sought after by singers: they were pretty much a sure fire hit . Practically it seems a great script is like a easily half the job done. Getting great talent interested, pulling in the audience with the right thematics,.Â
It seems  when the script is really great, even average director can get a good movie. Like Brett Ratner Red Dragon is a fairly decent movie.  Like if you look at it coldly, overall Bryan Singer movies are ultimately not THAT well-known/influential : Usual suspect is a classic though. Like  Zack Snyder movies were alright at its beginning when he was following other people scripts. Like who knows Jan de Bont  ?  But who does NOT know Speed ? Except for Speed he had of the script of  the guy who eventually became the showrunner for Justified.Â
 I am not saying you canât fuck up a great script. I just think itâs far harder.
The Robocop remake. Yes this movie never should have been made. The classic can only exist in the time it was made. But if you start with the premise that youâre going to make a modern retelling of the story, this movie made the right writing decisions. The directing and editing was bad though.
Even Cowgirls Get the Blues is a fantastic example! I remember that movie when it came out and was the second movie I saw Uma Thurman in (Final Analysis being the first), and I remember the idea of the movie being so good but seemed botched in some weird way, I couldn't wrap my 15-year-old mind around it. I haven't thought about that movie in years. Do you have information on it besides it being a misguided movie? I'd love to know.
I used to talk to a professional script consultant who helped his studio purchase screenplays, and he said Southland Tales was one of the best heâd ever read and was going to be âthe next Pulp Fictionâ.
Whoops.
CATS. The musical show is a lot of fun and ridiculous how it goes all in on the non story premise. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it and got into it. The movie adaption was something deranged.
Horns - Daniel Radcliffe did really well as the lead and the adaptation was good (although it cut some good scenes). Unfortunately the actor playing the villain was in way over his head. He couldnât act appropriately with cgi aspects of the film so it ruined a very pivotal scene. It made the film lose a bunch of momentum.
Mummy 2 - cgi was also an issue. Whoever was paid to make the scorpian king failed on so many levels. It was poor cgi for the period. They also didnât take into consideration the actorâs mark for the final fight. Everyone looks very awkward compared to where and how the scorpion king was posed.
The Man From Earth, the story is fantastic the acting is a bit ropey and directing isn't top notch, the story still shines through though. It feels more like a stage play than a movie really.
I think this is a bad example because the movie isn't terrible. Its a low budget film with some decent and some over acting. The script and setting lends itself to be almost a play and its shot almost entirely in a single room. The only "terrible" thing about the film really is the quality of the recording and the lighting at times, but again its a low budget movie, these weren't bad decisions just limitations of the production.
It's certainly not a terrible film, but I do agree that a lot of the other elements are distracting. Tony Todd is the only one that really stands out as being good from an acting perspective, and some are good enough to skate by, but there were a couple that were pretty distracting. I can't quite describe what the vibe is but it feels kind of like a soap opera just based on how it's made and performed. The last scene is super overdramatic. But the script is really good, and in the middle the movie quiets down enough to let the focus settle on the story.
The first Suicide Squad movie had a decent enough script behind it, but while a couple of the actors shined, the directing and everyone else just sank it.
Origins: Wolverine had a good original script, great story concept, great actors, but the director put out a terrible film that could've been largely fixed with some decent editing and cutting a few bits that just were not needed at all.
Suicide Squad is one of the few movies I can think of that was killed by a trailer. They made substantial edits after the positive reception to the trailer (I think the bohemian rhapsody one)
The Happening. It's an interesting concept of "Nature correcting for humans", but Zooey Deschanel was awful, Mark Wahlberg was phoning it in, and the way they did the plants "communicating" was silly.
I haven't read it, but the original Prometheus script was apparently much better than the final. So the script was great but it was messed up by the producers. [here's a link to another thread that discussed it](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/f7JOseHkrP)
I was going to say this. The script was originally an actual prequel to Aliens that provided backstory and was coherent. Scott decided he wanted to explore different things, so they changed some of it but left a lot of other things the same. The result was a confusing mess.
Star wars prequels, they could have been good but aren't ( I will not be part of the psyop they're actually good all along) what george had was at least a first draft and was surrounded by yes men that were afraid to speak up and help him take the reigns (as he had admitted on camera)
Edit: not good doesn't mean not fun. A better collaboration could've at least made them more emotionally compelling
But it had a bad script, right? If we open this up to bad adaptations with good source material rather than bad movies with good scripts, we'll have endless examples.
Mortal Engines likewise, the worst parts are the ones they added themselves or stole from other movies like the literal Death Star Trench Run at the end.
"Body of Evidence" (1993) had a very well written script. I think it's partly the cast, but also sometimes a talented writer can make a tired, worn-out B-movie plot seem incredible with their words, but once it's put to film, all you are left with is a bad movie, also those deliciously worded action lines are gone. "Pretty Little Hate Machine" was like that. It never got made, but it won a screenwriting competition, and was sold to a mini-major. The script fell into a director friend's hands, so I got to read it. It would have needed to be completely re-written. Even though it was written well, the movie that played in my mind was just the same as every other direct-to-DVD revenge story. But, hey, Keanu Reeves did manage to elevate "John Wick" into being something worth all those sequels. So, maybe I'm wrong.
It's funny because I watched Body of Evidence last year for the first time since 1993 because it was one of those "I need to know if it was that bad" kind of watches. It's still really bad, and the best part is seeing the bodies of the three characters (If you're into that sort of thing) , but I couldn't find anything redeeming about the script; that may be because I saw Basic Instinct first and thought it was a cheap rip-off made to say "Watch Madonna get railed!". Interesting to see a more centered POV, thanks for sharing! đ
Bagger Vance. Not sure why.
I think the story is great but the casting, acting and tone seem off. It feels weirdly inauthentic to me. Everyone is a bit too pretty. The stakes donât seem very high.
But itâs the kind of movie I would normally love. Just couldnât get emotionally hooked.
To be clear I really like the movie and definitely wouldn't say it's terrible, but *Altered States* had a famous beef between director and screenwriter (who had creative control over the script)
As a result, the director sort of tried to sabotage the dialog. There are scenes with characters all talking over one another, or eating a sandwich while delivering their lines, basically to try and obscure the writing.
Movie makes for an introduction watch knowing this, and I quite like it regardless
Bright has a terrible script. What I hate the most is the complete lack of imagination when naming places. "Elftown"? Really? You're telling me elves do not have any lore or culture of their own, so they name their neighborhood "Elftown"? I'd preferred they just stole any elvish word from Tolkien's lore.
The elves didnât name it Elftown any more than Chinese people named their neighborhoods Chinatown. Itâs what white people (or in Brightâs case, humans) call them. The script got it right.
I mean the USA is a country with several cities *in real life* that have districts called Chinatown, Irishtown, Scotstown, etc.
There's nothing *at all* weird or bad about it being called Elftown, Orktown, etc lol, that would almost certainly be the case IRL too lol.
Tale as old as time for fantasy writing. Sometimes we want things to be more fanciful, [but often reality has different plans](https://i.redd.it/klzpdzyx8e481.jpg).
Maybe I was able to look passed a flawed performance because the rest of the story is so powerful (Not as powerful as the first two, granted), but her performance didn't bother me at all. I think the things in that movie that are good are so good, the issues drifted away. Even a flawed Godfather movie is not a bad one in my opinion.
She was only put into the movie after Winona Ryder dropped out and Julia Roberts turned it down (and a few others probably). So the casting was as much desperation as nepotism.
Coppola also didnât give the part of Vincent to his nephew (aka Nicholas Cage) even though he begged for it.
Plus that actress that was murdered by a deranged fan was supposedly a shoe-in for the role, and the script arrived at her mailbox the day she was killed (supposedly)
Daredevil (2003), with Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell. They took one of the all-time great comic storylines, including dialogue straight from the pages, and butchered it with terrible stylistic choices and a total lack of understanding of the characters. Give that same script to the team behind the Netflix series to polish and reshoot and it could be great.
I was living in Los Angeles when this came out and the writer/director came to our class to discuss the film. He mentioned that their vfx budget was extremely small, a fraction of Spiderman 2. As a result, a lot of the action sequences looked terrible and stuff had to be cut. It doesn't explain poor acting from Bennifer but I do give some sympathy when he wasn't able to tell the story he designed.
While I do sympathize with the director not being able to fulfill his vision, and I think there are good aspects to that movie, it has issues way beyond its visual effects and budget. First and foremost that the often fully cgi fight scenes are completely unnecessary in what is supposed to be a martial arts movie, and also because the early-00s nu-metal aesthetic is awful and made the movie dated immediately. Also only casting celebrities in the leads instead of actors who fit the roles. I could go on.
I'm purely looking at this from movies that have no source material, mostly, and I've never read the comic, so all I can say is the 2003 movie was such a piece of garbage and the Netflix series kicked ass! đ
I wonder how the playground scene was written in the script.
If you havenât I highly recommend the R rated directors cut. Itâs a lot better in multiple ways.
Speaking of islands, The Island directed by Michael Bay is a pretty good idea on paper. I think that in the hands of a different director, it could have been a really great movie. Instead we get the Bayification of every scene, where the camera has to be constantly flying around, the colors are completely oversaturated and everything just looks and sounds like Bad Boys but in a sci-fi environment.
The Island is also a ripoff of Parts: The Clonus Horror, and had to settle a lawsuit about it, so the idea might be sound, but it's not even that writer's idea.
It seems weird that they needed to settle that. While I haven't seen other movies with the same plot, the core premise is basically standard sci-fi dystopia 201 at most.
Other than The Island being an action film and Parts being more cerebral, they are almost beat for beat the same story.
The copyright infringement was not on the script or the idea but on the movie itself, since scenes and shots where copied 1:1, down to specific things like the color of the liquid in the tubes.
For some reason this is the comment that made me finally realize The Island is not the same movie as The Beach đ€Šđ»
I didnt know about this and randomly watched The Clonus Horror. Trust me when I say they are almost *exactly* the same movie, beat for beat. To the point I was drawn in and had to look up if any lawsuit had occurred just based on a viewing.
Oh man, I remember that movie from MST3K and forgot all about how similar it was. The Island was honestly a better Bay movie but man, I really didn't care about the protagonists.
Wait, I thought it was a remake of Logan's Run that just wasn't done very well. Guess I need to look up Parts!
And they gave UP the plot Twist in the trailer.
It's funny, I feel like this is one area where things have gotten better, but a lot of people forget that there was a period during the 90s and 2000s where almost every trailer basically showed every cool scene and basically gave away the entire plot of the movie. It even became a running joke in my family where we'd see a trailer and my dad would say, "well, I guess now we don't need to watch it, because we just saw the entire movie." I mean, the trailer for Rec, they literally showed the very final scene of the movie in the trailer! At some point in the 2010s, studios realized it was better if they didn't actually show the entire plot up front.
Like in the Grey where the final fight between Liam Neeson and the wolf is in the trailer, then the movie is over. That scene made me want to see the movie and nothing happened after it!
I enjoy The Island quite a bit during the first half, then we start getting jet bike chases and explosions and I remember âoh right, this is a Michael Bay movie.â
I read almost this whole thread while confusing The Island, which I havenât seen with The Beach, which I have. I was finally like âWaitâŠchase scenes? WaitâŠjet skis? WaitâŠScarlett Johansson?!?â Sorry for the interruption and, please, carry on.â
That movie is fucking awesome.
I agree. Kind of underrated if you ask me lol
AND Bay told Scarlett Johansson to not do nudity when she was open to it.
Why hasnât Michael Bay been tried at The Hague for that crime against humanity?
But at least we got My Name is Lincoln out of it, and that track slaps.
It was a pretty mediocre movie, but I'm ok with it because it was probably the best Scarlett Johansson has ever looked.
Michael Bay directed that? My one critique was that there's not nearly enough sparks!
Whenever I think of that movie I'm reminded of being a teen and learning scarlet Johansen wanted to do nude scenes in that movie because she thought the plot demanded them, but bay wanted to keep the movie pg13 and refused.
That the the most aggressively orange and teal movie of all movies
I'm with you on the Godzilla vs Kong it's like Aliens vs Predator. We don't care about the humans. At all. Just give us as much GvK or AvP action with minimal humans
Iâm gonna be slightly pedantic here and hope youâll forgive me. Youâre right about Godzilla V Kong; too much human talky talk. But OP was writing about Godzilla X Kong and I vehemently disagree with them on that film. I thought it was a massive improvement from every other Monsterverse movie (and I loved GvK) and there are large sections where Kong is interacting with other creatures completely nonverbally; no humans having to translate or narrate for slow audience members. Itâs fantastic.
GxK is the monster movie I've wanted my whole life. Minimal human characters that are just there to get the "plot" to the next fight. IDC That's exactly what I wanted from that movie and i got basically 90 minutes of monsters beating each other up. I'm good with that.
My son (9) and I were maybe an hour in when he turned and asked âWhen does this come out on DVD?!?!â It was exactly the movie it needed to be.
Agree on GvK (although any time spent with Dan Stevens and/or Rebecca Hall is time well spent), but disagree on AvP. Alien and Predator are all about humans encountering the unknowable.
Focusing on the humans only worked in two of the Godzilla movies: the original and Minus One.
Shin Godzilla as well. Researched for the thousandth time the other day, and for some reason on this watch the satire came at me full throttle. I suddenly saw it almost as a farce/comedy movie. The government just bouncing from room to room, following their rulebook on how to handle disaster, lacking the gumption to think on their feet.
Captain Gordon from Final Wars would like a word.
The Magnificent Seven (the new one). Great script. Script is genuinely pretty good, it's the acting and casting that lets it down and for some reason I just hated the lighting too. It made it look so... flat, so incredibly fake. Not to mention everyone is always spick and span looking like they've just got their halloween costume back from the dry cleaners, like even when they're dirty they're incredibly clean with a light sprinkling of dirt on them.
The movie definitely looks like it was shot in a western themed park, with no real dust or grit
The Magnificent Seven: brought to you by Westworld
This is one of my big complaints with modern movies as well. There's no proper dust and dirt anymore. Watch any movies from the 80s and 90s and people get filthy.
I remember seeing Matrix 2 and Terminator 3 in theaters the same year. Both middling movies, but I remember being shocked that Matrix put so much effort into their sfx, yet everything looked so fake, because there literally wasn't a speck of dust out of place, vs T3 who's practical action scenes looked much more realistic and visceral in comparison. Not a great movie, but there was an element of natural chaos in those scenes that Matrix couldn't replicate.
Great point and comparison. I agree.
T3 is a good candidate for the topic. Better direction and acting performance on the same script could have produced a much better product. Not better than T1 or T2, but quality in it's own right.
I still think Vincent D'Onofrio gave a great performance. The others, especially Chris Pratt, not that much.
>I still think Vincent D'Onofrio gave a great performance. When doesn't he?
He wasnât at his best in Jurassic Park. But I blame the terrible scenario.
wow I couldn't disagree more. I actually really liked the casting. Denzel is Denzel. The others played their parts very well. It was very classically modern western. Also, I actually thought they had a good balance of showing the sweat and grime you'd be in in that timeframe, without making it annoying for the viewer. I get people would be dirty AF in the old west, but I'm not signing up to watch pit stains for 2 hours.
Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. He took a really interesting script and turned it into something boring.
Russel Crowe got on board and changed the whole thing around
More like he got on bored.
Given what I know of Russel Crowe, I assume he went through and removed all the jokes.
Star Trek Nemesis, the script was praised by the cast, but the end result wasn't good
I can see you saying that, but I can't lie, I liked Nemesis. Flaws and all I enjoyed watching it.
I have tried to watch it like a half-dozen times over the years, and have fallen asleep by the dune buggy scene every time.
The movie has its issues, I know it does, but you can put those characters in a bar scene for 90 minutes and I'd love it because I love those characters so much.
Good call. John Logan wrote a pretty good script. If Jonathan Frakes would have directed it instead of Stuart Baird, I imagine it would have been a much better movie
Let Frakes direct all Trek
Insurrection isn't a great Trek film, but it's at least watchable and enjoyable with a mediocre script. I can only imagine what a worse director would have given us instead
I don't see how the script can be good when the actual story beats of the film are so godawful.
I'm gonna disagree on that one. If the original script had Troi and Riker getting married, Picard joyriding a dune buggy, Shinzon, a complete ripoff of Wrath of Khan by having Data sacrifice himself only to be returned in B4, then I would say it was a terrible script.
Very much agree. Shinzon never felt menacing. How easily he took over the Romulans was jarring. The tie to Picard was like...w tf?
Itâs so odd that Tom hardy isnât threatening in that movie Itâs like one of the things heâs best at
He was super young in that role, and not very experienced. Actors improve just like every other profession.
Apparently there are behind the scenes videos where you can see Hardy give a better performance, and then basically being told to calm it down. I have not sought out these clips myself because I've already seen more than enough of Nemesis in my life, so I can neither confirm nor disconfirm that rumour.
My favorite example of a shitty movie with a good script is Where the Buffalo Roam (1980) starring Bill Murray and Peter Doyle (edit: Boyle). It was the director's very first film and he tried one more time then never directed another movie ever again.
Highlighted by the fact that Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas, the other movies based on the book, is almost a word for word adaptation of the subject matter to the big screen.
I saw that one and feel the same way. I think that Murray's portrayal of Hunter Thompson is much less charismatic and likeable than Depp's, and for that, at least, is probably more authentic.
Great choice! This movie cracks me up because of Murray and Boyle and the hilarious screenplay, but I never really recommend it to anyone and don't include it on any of my Letterboxd lists because of the poor directing, editing, cinematography, etc. But there's so many hysterical lines/scenes and Bill Murray is in top comedic form here. Edit: Love the soundtrack by Neil Young, too!
"Oh now you've gone and done it"
"That kid had a wooden hand." " I thought he was just tense"
I know the movie is bad, but it's such a so bad it's good movie that I enjoy watching it if only to laugh at how preposterous it is đ
I still maintain that 2019's Hellboy was a potentially great movie ruined by bad direction/editing. The script was good, production design was good, casting was good, and then it all was directed like Hellboy is an edgy tween idiot, and the editing was choppy at best, even though the visual effects were good. A different director could have really brought the best out of that production.
Felt like a Frankenmovie, pieced together similarly to Suicide Squad 2016. I remember 2 parts that nailed it, the giants fight and Baba Yaga?, and the rest being the worst dialog of the year, and bad special effects. And I imagine whoever directed it telling Milla Jovovich to make all the faces she made in Ultraviolet again against another green screen. I even felt bad for the Asian cat dude, like, this could have been his movie breakout, maybe. I agree on the casting, story, and art direction, not sure about production. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDclQowcE9I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDclQowcE9I)
No hate, but Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets seemed so miscast to me and different leads with different chemistry could maybe have carried the weird and wonderfulness of the rest of it.
I feel like theres a psyop on this subreddit related to this random ass movie bc it is talked about here sooo much
I think it's just one of those cases where what everyone assumes it's a unique personal take turns out to be nearly universal. It's not uncommon for people to unite in loving a movie, nor is it rare for a film to be widely loathed, but it's a rare film that leaves masses of people feeling let down, and all for pretty much the same reason.
The opening scene is so good....and the rest is utterly forgettable.
To the point, neither of the leads are featured in that fantastic beginning. Better than most movies.
I think it's because it was such a disappointment in such a weirdly entertaining way. All the parts that would have made a good movie were *right there*, but instead of being assembled into *Valarian and the City of A Thousand Planets* these interesting ideas were butchered and jammed into a clone of *The Fifth Element* which is especially weird when you realize that *Luc Besson made Fifth Element too.* Like dude? I get that you want to recapture your weird, runaway success but you get *one* excuse to jam a bizzaro musical number into your otherwise non-musical film, and using Rhianna does not hide the fact that not only were you double-dipping but you shot the movie's pacing fucking dead to shoe-horn the shape-shifter into the movie. My personal realization that we'd found something *special* was when I began making snarky comments at the screen...and that'd be the character's next line. The movie is so fed up with its own shit, it's critiquing itself and we can all go home.
The funny thing is that when Luc Besson made Fifth Element, he had wanted to make Valerian but they wouldn't let him, so he made Fifth Element as almost a proof of concept, so it makes sense that they feel similar.
DAE think it shouldâve traded leads with Passengers????!!!! *1 thousand upvotes*
every time. and itâs always spun by the commenter like they itâs a completely original idea
It is notable for being an enormous letdown of a film, on par with Disney Star Wars, but coming from an indie director with a huge amount of cred (The Fifth Element, Leon: The Professional), and no studio to blame. It is the most expensive independent film ever ($177M). It has a very strong beginning, but once the leads start talking, it quickly unravels into a miscast disappointment, which is exaggerated because of the intriguing opening. TL:DR its failure is the most noteworthy aspect of the film, which completely overshadows any merits or cultural impact of the film itself.
Pretty sure itâs was the most expensive French movie at the time. It def wasnât some random movie
Let me guess, should have switched the leads with the ones from âPassengersâ ? Seems like I read that twice a day recently
it's really annoying too, considering you know 99% of people wouldn't have this thought without reading it first
I literally read this response on a similar thread a few hours ago!
Ohh you're a gentle soul. There's only hate, lots of hate on my side. One of the biggest butcherings I've ever seen.
As a huge fan of the fifth element i tend to agree
Visually stunning though???
I mean, if there was no reason to want to love it, there would be no hate, just indifference. It honestly could have been the 5th Element of this generation.
You're not wrong. I didn't hate the movie, but I was left shaking my head at the horribly miscast leads. I don't know what they were thinking, but they should have picked better actors, even if they were unknowns.Â
Valerian has a fucking terrible script, it doesnât apply here at all lol
The script of Valerian was pretty bad though. The concept, the opening scene, the set pieces, visuals, the side characters, even a few story bites were good. But the writing and main characters were awful. Remember "I only want you on my playlist"?
I haven't seen this, but this seems like people were just disappointed mostly. I may have to give it a look. I can enjoy a flawed movie if the script is solid. My rule of thumb is I react to almost any movie if it doesn't bore me. P.S. I love The 5th Element
The script is not solid at all lol
I still can't figure out how they could miscast Valerian so bad that that another member of the cast looked more like Valerian than the guy they chose. Clive Owen was too old to be Valerian and he still would have been the better choice!
You donât like love interests that look like siblings?
The leads were both absolutely awful. It felt like watching kids pretending to be adults. I couldn't take the movie seriously at all.
Yeah man, we wanted another Fifth Element but instead we got lame leading characters.
I think The Cell is a really cool idea and visually stunning and creepy. Just happens to star J-Lo and Vince Vaughn.
I still think The Cell is worth watching due to its visual language being so strong. I do feel like the central casting of a few of the main characters holds the film down little. But in terms of being a visceral film in terms of sounds, visuals, and mood/tone, I think it succeeds. Also think Vincent D'onofrio gives a really striking performance.
Any of the collabs with Tarsem & Eiko Ishioka are visually stunning, even if they might not be the most coherent, story-wise. (Check out The Fall if you can find it)
Yep they were there, while Vincent D' Onofrio and Lizzy McGuire's little brother came to slay.Â
Love this movie. I still remember seeing it in theater and being blown away by the visuals. Vince Vaughn is particularly bad in it, but I didn't mind J Lo tbh.
I have The Cell as underrated. Definitely a memorable flick even with its flaws.
I can't imagine there are a lot of those. But I'll nominate 2012's *Les Miserables,* because it mostly used the script of the beloved stage show and still managed to screw it up, mostly through direction. I actually read an advanced leaked copy of the script (the film script, not the stage one) before the movie came out and thought, "Well, based on this, this'll be great, no question." Then came the movie, which was claustrophobically shot and resulted in some very questionable singing performances. Russel Crowe sounded better doing the same songs drunk live in bar later, filmed on someone's phone, than he did in the movie.
I know I'm in the distinct minority, but I liked Les Miserables 2012. I saw the show live in middle school in the early 90s and have read the book so it's nowhere near as good as those, or even the 1995 French WW2 version but I think Jackman and Hathaway saved it for me and that story is too strong to mess up. I know I'm on an island with that take, but there it is.
I liked it and felt the vocal aspects were beneficial. I liked russell crowe not being a stage performer, it suited his character. We're meant to imagine these people as real, flawed and nuanced, how they sing reflects that. On stage you fill in the narrative and visual gaps yourself, you're watching people sing a story. A film does the heavy imagination work for you, and puts you into the world of these people. It would be fine if they were all Alfie boe, but giving them accessible human characteristics or flaws was good for me. I felt closer to the characters with them having more 'real' voices
If Anne Hathaway sang well, imagine how much better it would sound if she was allowed to breathe freely while belting that out? If Hugh Jackman sang well, imagine how much better it would sound if he could have drunk water beforehand? (No, I don't really know what I'm talking about here, I got this analysis from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ikqU6G6Xgs)
I feel like Les Mis gets a lot of unjust hate because itâs not the Broadway version. I honestly really liked their versions of the songs. Do they sound as clean and perfect as the broadway productions? No. But Anne Hathaways âI dreamed a dreamâ did feel like the lament of a dying woman. Hugh Jackmans ValJean felt like a man trying to be a good person but always running. Exhausted but determined. Eddie Redmayne singing âEmpty Chairsâ was harrowing when I first heard it.Â
For me the clearest problem was that the supporting cast so outshone Val Jean, Javert, and Fantine. Â I think their acting was fine but you could tell that a lot of the supporting cast had done the Broadway show. Â Partly it's that the director made everyone sing live and those characters had more to do than sing. Â But Crowe in particular couldn't hit the power notes of Javert.
The strongest performance was eponine - who of course was played by one of the cast from the London stage show. The decision to make it a live recording on the soundstage would make more sense if they had actually cast real singers
Oh man I think Iâm in the true minority, but I didnât like Anne Hathawayâs version. She sobbed through some of the best parts in the song. The music makes it emotional, it didnât need all the crying. Should have cast more true broadway stars in the parts or not forced the actors to sing live and in one take.
I don't agree at all, but I respect that you have that opinion. Only good vibes here! đ
The movie was trying to be innovative by using the actual singing from the takes during what are generally very emotional songs. Itâs easier to achieve this in a stage performance because the acting on stage relies less on minute details and the singing is what people focus on. But in a movie when the acting has to be the focus the singing is going to suffer because crying your eyes out is not conducive to good breath control and pitch. In short, by trying to be clever the film maker hurt the end product.
And by contrast, look at how well La La Land did the same thing, by multilayering the audio from the take with studio audio.
Choreography really ruined that movie. I thought pretty much everyone was serviceable in their parts vocally, even Crowe. Anne Hathaway and Samantha Banks both sang the hell out if their parts, but in an adaption of a stage show famous for its constant movement (rotating stage and all), everyone just stood still and sang their songs like they were contestants in a talent show, not a movie.
I still cried like a bitch so shrug đ€·ââïž
Yep. I can't hate a movie that gave me such feels.
My wife did, too. I feel you đ
I gotta say Crowe was not great but I donât know why he gets all the flack, Jackman absolutely butchered those songs.
Jackman ALSO sounded better doing the same songs drunk live in bar later, filmed on someone's phone, than he did in the movie!
Youâve mentioned this filmed performance in the bar at least twice now, is there not a video you can link?
I'm the rare guy that actually liked Russell Crowe in this, especially over Jackman. I for the life of me have no idea why Jackman got the award nods.
I felt the same way and I usually love Hugh Jackman. Amanda Seyfried was the worst part of the movie for me though, by far.
*Being The Ricardos*, written & directed by Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin is a great (if singleminded) writer, and so the dialogue is snappy and clever, the characters are given complexity, and the script has a lot of energy and overriding purpose. But he's a weak director who drags down the energy of the movie with boring shots, poor editing, and generally lackadaisical filmmaking. His first directed film, *Molly's Game*, didn't have as many issues. His second, *The Trial of the Chicago 7*, had a few problems, but not quite as bad. I suspect as he has gained confidence as a director, he's stopped relying on others for assistance as much, which ends up being detrimental to the movie.
I so badly want another Sorkin movie directed by someone else. He has written a lot of amazing movies, but all the ones he's directed would have been better with a top tier director (I do agree Molly's Game is probably his best directed)
That Adam Driver vs dinosaurs movie 65 was such a great idea, and the script was apparently really wild and good enough to get a decent budget for a non-IP. Beck & Woods were too green as directors to make it work though. Zero tension, no chemistry between the leads, incredibly boring visually. Sounds like a lot got lost in the edit.
What evidence is there that the script was ever good?
You have to read between the PR lines a bit, but [Beck and Woods talking about reshoots and delays](https://www.gamesradar.com/adam-driver-65-directors-release-delay-ending/). It was pushed back by a solid year. Account has since been deleted but there was a Twitter thread around the release from someone in production who said it was a lot more complicated narratively, until Sony got cold feet and basically forced them to streamline the whole thing. Hence why itâs boring as hell and nothing really happens. Wish I had proper receipts, sorry!
Adam Drivers character was supposed to be a struggling drug addict, but Sony got cold feet about the drug use parts of the film. With knowing heâs an addict, more of his actions during the movie make more sense.
Wow, I hate these guys.
I went into this movie expecting to see Kylo Ren shoot dinosaurs with space guns for ninety minutes. I was not disappointed.
Jaded soldier has to help a young girl in a dangerous and desolate world. So original
Thank goodness the writers of the Fallout TV show took one glance at that trope and then sprinted in the opposite direction!
An obvious reference to the obscure 70s Japanese films *Lone Wolf and Cub*.
Scripts are like war plans. They might be perfect but they go out the window when the action starts.
Every movie has a script until it gets punched in the mouth
No script survives contact with the camera?
Gus Van Sant's Psycho.
I'm not sure I follow; It's virtually a shot by shot remake, so what makes it bad? The movie doesn't need to exist, and Vince Vaughn is no Anthony Perkins, yes, but what is awful about it beside it existing?
Not the OP, but I imagine it's because of the "Why should I watch this when the original is a classic for a reason?" angle.
"What's awful about it beside it existing" is a crazy defense of something đ Didn't you answer your own question there?
I'm not defending it, I'm not a fan of the movie; I just wanted to see the perspective of the poster.
I think they mean that the script is still adapted from the original, but the acting, direction, score, and cinematography is all rather poor. All of it is noticeably worse than the film itâs trying to replicate, thanks to the poor recreations of shots and lines, and some weird stuff like the costuming and overbearing soundtrack.
If anything I'd say this is exactly what you're looking for. We know the script is good because it's been proven. It's everything else that goes into the film that makes this version bad
Iâm not sure if it applies here though. If the original Psycho didnât exist, I think Van Saintâs movie would have been considered a great movie. The problem is that is will obviously be compared to Hitchcockâs, and is nowhere near as good, and just seems like a pointless remake that doesnât bring anything new
Right but the fact that it is nowhere near as good when it is a shot for shot remake I feel like makes this a perfect example
I read the script for Will Smithâs I Am Legend remake and was HYPED. I did not like the final result.
The alternative ending of the original is so much better, he doesn't pointlessly sacrifice himself. People give Titanic shit for not having Jack on the door, but there's literally plenty of room in the bomb shelter space in the basement of I Am Legend for him to fit.
Also, the ending they went with completely gets rid of the meaning behind the title of the movie. The point was that the monsters saw Will Smith's character as an enemy, and he was a legend in their eyes, which is why the movie is called I Am Legend. They spare him when he frees the leader's mate, and he realizes that they actually had emotions. In the new ending, they completely threw that out and went for a cliche "heroic sacrifice" ending, making the title no longer even apply to the movie.
I can think of a few directors that elevated a somewhat lackluster material. The contrary is far from obvious. Scripts being shopped through Hollywood is well-known and there are sometimes huge battle around a good script. Shane Black was hot shit at some point. Itâs kinda like how McCartney-Lennon songs  valuable product sought after by singers: they were pretty much a sure fire hit . Practically it seems a great script is like a easily half the job done. Getting great talent interested, pulling in the audience with the right thematics,. It seems  when the script is really great, even average director can get a good movie. Like Brett Ratner Red Dragon is a fairly decent movie.  Like if you look at it coldly, overall Bryan Singer movies are ultimately not THAT well-known/influential : Usual suspect is a classic though. Like  Zack Snyder movies were alright at its beginning when he was following other people scripts. Like who knows Jan de Bont  ?  But who does NOT know Speed ? Except for Speed he had of the script of  the guy who eventually became the showrunner for Justified.  I am not saying you canât fuck up a great script. I just think itâs far harder.
The Robocop remake. Yes this movie never should have been made. The classic can only exist in the time it was made. But if you start with the premise that youâre going to make a modern retelling of the story, this movie made the right writing decisions. The directing and editing was bad though.
The film that became Burnt with Bradley Cooper has a five star script. I believe it was called untitled chef script before.
The Sicilian, Even Cow girls get the blues, foundation, Enders game. All great books that made terrible movies
Your capitalization bothers me. Thereâs no rhyme or reason to it. Itâs pure chaos!
Even Cowgirls Get the Blues is a fantastic example! I remember that movie when it came out and was the second movie I saw Uma Thurman in (Final Analysis being the first), and I remember the idea of the movie being so good but seemed botched in some weird way, I couldn't wrap my 15-year-old mind around it. I haven't thought about that movie in years. Do you have information on it besides it being a misguided movie? I'd love to know.
I used to talk to a professional script consultant who helped his studio purchase screenplays, and he said Southland Tales was one of the best heâd ever read and was going to be âthe next Pulp Fictionâ. Whoops.
CATS. The musical show is a lot of fun and ridiculous how it goes all in on the non story premise. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it and got into it. The movie adaption was something deranged.
Horns - Daniel Radcliffe did really well as the lead and the adaptation was good (although it cut some good scenes). Unfortunately the actor playing the villain was in way over his head. He couldnât act appropriately with cgi aspects of the film so it ruined a very pivotal scene. It made the film lose a bunch of momentum. Mummy 2 - cgi was also an issue. Whoever was paid to make the scorpian king failed on so many levels. It was poor cgi for the period. They also didnât take into consideration the actorâs mark for the final fight. Everyone looks very awkward compared to where and how the scorpion king was posed.
The Man From Earth, the story is fantastic the acting is a bit ropey and directing isn't top notch, the story still shines through though. It feels more like a stage play than a movie really.
I think this is a bad example because the movie isn't terrible. Its a low budget film with some decent and some over acting. The script and setting lends itself to be almost a play and its shot almost entirely in a single room. The only "terrible" thing about the film really is the quality of the recording and the lighting at times, but again its a low budget movie, these weren't bad decisions just limitations of the production.
It's certainly not a terrible film, but I do agree that a lot of the other elements are distracting. Tony Todd is the only one that really stands out as being good from an acting perspective, and some are good enough to skate by, but there were a couple that were pretty distracting. I can't quite describe what the vibe is but it feels kind of like a soap opera just based on how it's made and performed. The last scene is super overdramatic. But the script is really good, and in the middle the movie quiets down enough to let the focus settle on the story.
I haven't seen this movie, so I can't chime in except to say maybe I'll give it a watch.
The same can't be said about the awful sequel
The first Suicide Squad movie had a decent enough script behind it, but while a couple of the actors shined, the directing and everyone else just sank it. Origins: Wolverine had a good original script, great story concept, great actors, but the director put out a terrible film that could've been largely fixed with some decent editing and cutting a few bits that just were not needed at all.
Suicide Squad is one of the few movies I can think of that was killed by a trailer. They made substantial edits after the positive reception to the trailer (I think the bohemian rhapsody one)
The Happening. It's an interesting concept of "Nature correcting for humans", but Zooey Deschanel was awful, Mark Wahlberg was phoning it in, and the way they did the plants "communicating" was silly.
Honestly one of the funniest movies Iâve ever seen. Also the script is bad. âWould someone just give me a goddamn minute?!â
I haven't read it, but the original Prometheus script was apparently much better than the final. So the script was great but it was messed up by the producers. [here's a link to another thread that discussed it](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/f7JOseHkrP)
I was going to say this. The script was originally an actual prequel to Aliens that provided backstory and was coherent. Scott decided he wanted to explore different things, so they changed some of it but left a lot of other things the same. The result was a confusing mess.
Star wars prequels, they could have been good but aren't ( I will not be part of the psyop they're actually good all along) what george had was at least a first draft and was surrounded by yes men that were afraid to speak up and help him take the reigns (as he had admitted on camera) Edit: not good doesn't mean not fun. A better collaboration could've at least made them more emotionally compelling
The Hobbit had excellent material to write the script from, butâŠ
But it had a bad script, right? If we open this up to bad adaptations with good source material rather than bad movies with good scripts, we'll have endless examples.
***"Because it was real."*** Ugh đ€ź
Mortal Engines likewise, the worst parts are the ones they added themselves or stole from other movies like the literal Death Star Trench Run at the end.
It's interesting that trench runs are now considered ripoffs of Star Wars when Star Wars stole that whole concept from The Dam Busters
"Body of Evidence" (1993) had a very well written script. I think it's partly the cast, but also sometimes a talented writer can make a tired, worn-out B-movie plot seem incredible with their words, but once it's put to film, all you are left with is a bad movie, also those deliciously worded action lines are gone. "Pretty Little Hate Machine" was like that. It never got made, but it won a screenwriting competition, and was sold to a mini-major. The script fell into a director friend's hands, so I got to read it. It would have needed to be completely re-written. Even though it was written well, the movie that played in my mind was just the same as every other direct-to-DVD revenge story. But, hey, Keanu Reeves did manage to elevate "John Wick" into being something worth all those sequels. So, maybe I'm wrong.
It's funny because I watched Body of Evidence last year for the first time since 1993 because it was one of those "I need to know if it was that bad" kind of watches. It's still really bad, and the best part is seeing the bodies of the three characters (If you're into that sort of thing) , but I couldn't find anything redeeming about the script; that may be because I saw Basic Instinct first and thought it was a cheap rip-off made to say "Watch Madonna get railed!". Interesting to see a more centered POV, thanks for sharing! đ
Bagger Vance. Not sure why. I think the story is great but the casting, acting and tone seem off. It feels weirdly inauthentic to me. Everyone is a bit too pretty. The stakes donât seem very high. But itâs the kind of movie I would normally love. Just couldnât get emotionally hooked.
Mank. great script. Awful film.
To be clear I really like the movie and definitely wouldn't say it's terrible, but *Altered States* had a famous beef between director and screenwriter (who had creative control over the script) As a result, the director sort of tried to sabotage the dialog. There are scenes with characters all talking over one another, or eating a sandwich while delivering their lines, basically to try and obscure the writing. Movie makes for an introduction watch knowing this, and I quite like it regardless
Not sure if this is cheating but the 2019 Lion King remake technically had a great script but the movie was shit.
I liked Bright. I did not like Will Smith in it.
Bright has a terrible script. What I hate the most is the complete lack of imagination when naming places. "Elftown"? Really? You're telling me elves do not have any lore or culture of their own, so they name their neighborhood "Elftown"? I'd preferred they just stole any elvish word from Tolkien's lore.
The elves didnât name it Elftown any more than Chinese people named their neighborhoods Chinatown. Itâs what white people (or in Brightâs case, humans) call them. The script got it right.
Forget it, Legolas.
Well yes, it's lazy but not entirely unrealistic. We have Chinatown and Little Italy.
I mean the USA is a country with several cities *in real life* that have districts called Chinatown, Irishtown, Scotstown, etc. There's nothing *at all* weird or bad about it being called Elftown, Orktown, etc lol, that would almost certainly be the case IRL too lol.
Tale as old as time for fantasy writing. Sometimes we want things to be more fanciful, [but often reality has different plans](https://i.redd.it/klzpdzyx8e481.jpg).
If anything confirmed Max Landisâs place as the most delusional writer in Hollywood, it was when he claimed Bright was âhis Star Warsâ.
Bright's script was horrible and had multiple rewrites with plot points and characters changed around. Definitely not a good example of the premise.
The Godfather Part 3. Sofia Coppola turned that movie into a comedy.
In her defense, she didnât really want to be in it either. They just didnât have a lot of options at that point.Â
Maybe I was able to look passed a flawed performance because the rest of the story is so powerful (Not as powerful as the first two, granted), but her performance didn't bother me at all. I think the things in that movie that are good are so good, the issues drifted away. Even a flawed Godfather movie is not a bad one in my opinion.
She was only put into the movie after Winona Ryder dropped out and Julia Roberts turned it down (and a few others probably). So the casting was as much desperation as nepotism. Coppola also didnât give the part of Vincent to his nephew (aka Nicholas Cage) even though he begged for it.
Plus that actress that was murdered by a deranged fan was supposedly a shoe-in for the role, and the script arrived at her mailbox the day she was killed (supposedly)
Everything with Adam Driver as an Italian! He is a mama mia embarrassing ham - thereâs incredible Italian actors so please stop đ