CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › Fail Draft : Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fail Draft : Discussion - Page 7

post #301 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:20pm
I have to agree about showgirls...after all the movie really doesn't promise you anything but tits...deliveries said tits and yet..your still left totally disappointed.
Reply
post #302 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:22pm
Tits are never a fail.
Reply
post #303 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:22pm
Thread Starter 
It's a good pick. And kinda obvious too. Didn't we need to watch movies from different decades than the nineties? I fail to see the awesomeness of your picks compared to the rest.
Reply
post #304 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:22pm
On the other hand, Showgirls with the laugh track is about the best thing ever.
Reply
post #305 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
It's a good pick. And kinda obvious too. Didn't we need to watch movies from different decades than the nineties? I fail to see the awesomeness of your picks compared to the rest.
You're going to get other decades, Argentine. I'm playing softball for now since everyone wants to go contemporary for first round.

You'll get schooled. Oh yes...you'll get schooled.
Reply
post #306 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:25pm
The best argument to be made for Showgirls' spectacular levels of fail is Verhoeven's defense of it. Priceless. I'm so glad we got the films out of him we have since, cos I was ready to throw him on the washed up, deluded artist pile after that.
Reply
post #307 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:26pm
Oh shit no Elvis did not
Reply
post #308 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:27pm
The bait is on the hook gentlemen! The bait is on the hook!
Reply
post #309 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:28pm
BttF 2 is a huge failure...unfunny, poorly paced, and too much Biff.
Reply
post #310 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sackley View Post
The best argument to be made for Showgirls' spectacular levels of fail is Verhoeven's defense of it. Priceless. I'm so glad we got the films out of him we have since, cos I was ready to throw him on the washed up, deluded artist pile after that.

Exactly. It took roughly a decade until Black Book restored the man's credibility. He had a great career and he was just about an A-List director when BOOM

Showgirls fucking knocks him on his ass. Sure, he had 2 modest hits after that. But, he was the guy who did Showgirls. That kind of stink takes forever to wash off.

Don't even get me started on Jessie Spano and Paul Astreides epileptic water fuck.
Reply
post #311 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:29pm
Thread Starter 
First pick of the draft that i disagree completely (i can understand Superman Returns and Hulk being picked)
Reply
post #312 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
BttF 2 is a huge failure...unfunny, poorly paced, and too much Biff.
Are you 8?
Reply
post #313 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:31pm
BTTF2? Are you insane?

I am looking for that defense.
Reply
post #314 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:31pm
Loved the first one, felt the second one dropped the ball, liked the third one. Sorry.
Reply
post #315 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
Loved the first one, felt the second one dropped the ball, liked the third one. Sorry.
Explain.
Reply
post #316 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:32pm
In my eyes the second one is the best of them all. Yeah, even better than the first one.
Reply
post #317 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:32pm
Sure Back To The Future two is probably the weakest of the three since it is a stop gap but it's a hell of a fun stop gap. Parts 2 & 3 are of course not as good as the first (they rarely are in these kinds of situations) but I'll defend the whole series as good fun well made entertainment all day long.
Reply
post #318 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:33pm
Thread Starter 
I'm with Jan. The second one is so smart, the only problem with it is that 3 completely wasted all the potential and buildup.
Reply
post #319 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:34pm
I'll agree that the 2015 segment of Part 2 gets a little old, and is poorly thought out on a conceptual level. It's garish, it's meandering, and it relies more on gags than plot. Once they go to alternate 1985 the movie gets interesting, and then when we go back to 1955 and the first and second film folds in on one another, and it's just spectacular. It's also got a great cliffhanger, and leads into the fun-as-hell Part 3 (even more fun if you're a die-hard Western fan like me).
Reply
post #320 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:34pm
Now that I'm part of this draft (thanks again, Judas), I remember why I don't do every draft - I'm already anxious about my picks.
Reply
post #321 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:35pm
Aside from my own pick, Dune's a close second for the current winner (loser?) this round.

Weirdly enough, I feel Dune is fail that everybody should see at least once. It's like the film knows from the first 10 minutes how bad it's going to fail, and seems determined to fail in a blaze of glory.

And Judas owes me an explanation too. BTTF II is still one of the ballsiest mainstream sequels ever to see the light of day.
Reply
post #322 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:35pm
No no no. As a kid, I kinda liked the 2nd Back to the Future, but loved the 3rd. Nowadays, the original cannot be topped, but the 2nd is beast of it's own. Loved it now, as it deconstruct the 1st. The 3rd is terrible.
Reply
post #323 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:35pm
Was waiting for LXG to show up (and agree with Savage, Clark, and everyone who likes #2.. I would have went with #3 for the fail)
Reply
post #324 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:35pm
Elvis, I need a defense on that one. Cos i've got a feeling its good. But BTTF2 is the best sci-fi film of the bunch, even if it is the least fun. Its still a pretty damn good film, especially when you look at some of the other stuff Zemeckis is associated with.

Come on, let's hear it...
Reply
post #325 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:35pm
The 2015 part is pure fun though because it will never really age that bad since they aimed for unrealistic.
Reply
post #326 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:36pm
Thread Starter 
Fuck you Gulager. LXG was mine.
Reply
post #327 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:36pm
Oh, how I hate the Back to the Future sequels! The original has heart. The story was nearly flawless. With 2 everything went wrong. Let's count the ways:

Crass commercialism. The overabundance of product placement-jokey or not-is enough to make your head explode.

No Crispin Glover. George McFly was the heart & soul (density, if you will) of the original. Losing Glover's zaniness hurt, but shoehorning in a faux-George was down right offensive! (Zemeckis was rightly sued) Also, the way they wrote him out would make the next chapter ineffective.

No chemistry between Fox & Shue. I demand the original Jennifer!

Zemeckis' direction--No subtlety. Loud and obnoxious.

The way they leave the Biff thread hanging. Paradox my ass!
Reply
post #328 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:37pm
Back to the Future II works for me as a failure when looked at in the context of when it came out. It was probably the most anticipated sequel of its time when it came out. And many were left scratching their heads by its oddness...

It was this big loud thing that was very eager to please and used a kitchen sink approach to its every move.

In retrospect though, I have affection for it. I can still watch it and be entertained. It's Zemeckis being "experimental" without being pretentious. I can get behind that I guess.
Reply
post #329 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:37pm
Holy shit, LXG was an excruciating theatrical experience. Pain.

I suppose the argument can be made that BTTF II fails as a stand alone movie, it is just one middle section. Certainly baffled many a folk in 1989, I surmise that's why the third one didn't do all that well.

I haven't seen it in years, though. The whole Crispin Glover situation is fail enough.
Reply
post #330 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:37pm
LXG is a fine pick as it ended the career on one Sir. Sean Connory and that is enough reason
Reply
post #331 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:38pm
I still love the original Back to the Future more, but the second was still good.

And LXG is a perfect choice for this.
Reply
post #332 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:38pm
BTTF III is wasted potential more than anything else. It's not a bad film in its own right.
Reply
post #333 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:38pm
I haven't seen BttF 2 in a long, long time. I had a defense, but Greg Clark pretty much nailed my feelings on it.
Reply
post #334 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:42pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thejyav View Post
LXG is a fine pick as it ended the career on one Sir. Sean Connory and that is enough reason
Exactly. That was going to be my reasoning. It's the legacy Sir Sean Connery decided to leave us with. Fuck that movie.
Reply
post #335 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
Oh, how I hate the Back to the Future sequels! The original has heart. The story was nearly flawless. With 2 everything went wrong. Let's count the ways:

Crass commercialism. The overabundance of product placement-jokey or not-is enough to make your head explode.
While you might be right about the product placement it is part of the joke and it does not qualify as an amendment to failure.

Quote:
No Crispin Glover. George McFly was the heart & soul (density, if you will) of the original. Losing Glover's zaniness hurt, but shoehorning in a faux-George was down right offensive! (Zemeckis was rightly sued) Also, the way they wrote him out would make the next chapter ineffective.
His lack hurts indeed. What about this suing though? Any enlightment you want to offer?

Quote:
No chemistry between Fox & Shue. I demand the original Jennifer!
Bad casting indeed but still no catering to failure.

Quote:
Zemeckis' direction--No subtlety. Loud and obnoxious.
Wrong.

Quote:
The way they leave the Biff thread hanging. Paradox my ass!
That would constitute a failure on behalf of pt. three though.
Reply
post #336 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:43pm
Oh, fuck Sean Connery. His filmography is littered with turds.

You could do a whole Sean Connery fail draft theme with no trouble at all.
Reply
post #337 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:44pm
Certainly but I'd rather live in a world where he was still making movies than one where LXG left such a bad taste he up and quit
Reply
post #338 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:47pm
What's truly dick about LXG (aside from that acronym) is that there's no conceivable reason for the departures from the source material. Not only is the comic story ridiculously better, it's more cinematic. I can understand changing Quatermain for Connery, but no other change makes sense from any standpoint, financial, artistic, or even on a mass appeal level.
Reply
post #339 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:49pm
Jan, they mixed in images of Glover from the original with some other actor. Glover sued claiming it gave the false impression he was in the movie. Believe he won.

The Biff paradox I'm referring to is the older Biff. (The one who steals the Delorean) Correct me if I'm wrong, but its an unresolved thread.

Am I the only one who cringes thru the Michael J. in drag scenes?
Reply
post #340 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:49pm
LXG.

Venice still stands.

(This line said shortly after an extensive CAR CHASE through its streets!)

The villain dies by getting shot in the back and lying face down with his eyes open. That's how the main villain is dispatched in this big summer action extravaganza.

Tom Sawyer. (And I don't mean the Rush song, because even THAT would be more acceptable)

Until the end of time, this will be the last time any of us saw Sean Connery on the big screen.

For all that and more, I can think of few films to come that will top this in its excruciating badness.
Reply
post #341 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:50pm
I never finished watching LXG. I caught parts of it here and there and wasn't even remotely interested in seeing the whole thing. Nemo seemed kinda cool, however.
Reply
post #342 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:50pm
Heck, there's one Connery movie that I'm surprised isn't a first rounder. And I assume everyone knows exactly which one I'm talking about.
Reply
post #343 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:51pm
To be honest, I'm surprised that didn't go first.
Reply
post #344 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:53pm
if not today, then tomorrow. it will have its day in the sun, don't you worry.
Reply
post #345 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilTwin View Post
Heck, there's one Connery movie that I'm surprised isn't a first rounder. And I assume everyone knows exactly which one I'm talking about.
No, I don't know which one you're talking about, because picking bad Connery films is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Reply
post #346 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
Jan, they mixed in images of Glover from the original with some other actor. Glover sued claiming it gave the false impression he was in the movie. Believe he won.
Thanks. I think I have to give it another spin asap.

Quote:
The Biff paradox I'm referring to is the older Biff. (The one who steals the Delorean) Correct me if I'm wrong, but its an unresolved thread.
Yeah, looking back again there are quite a few paradox-related mistakes. But I still blame it on the third movie for dropping the ball completely.
Reply
post #347 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:56pm
EDIT: w.r.t. Other bad Sean Connery movies.

I may have picked it. But M2M aside, I'll see if I can avoid obvious picks like that gargantuan piece of shit you are all referring to.

Interestingly enough, we may have another film with the same title coming in a couple of years that (due to egos, massive script problems and concept outweighing the storyteling) may end up on this list if we ever revise it.

Here's hoping I'm wrong about that.
Reply
post #348 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:57pm
Can't really argue Lost World being here, because there's certainly reasons, but I enjoy the hell out of it still.
Reply
post #349 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:58pm
The Connery I believe you're thinking about is far too awesome a movie to be considered here.
Reply
post #350 of 1962
9/22/08 at 3:58pm
Thread Starter 
Yeah, i dig some parts of it. But the movie is sloppy as hell.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Drafts & Lists
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › Drafts & Lists › Fail Draft : Discussion