Movies that OFFEND you

[The Borgified Corpse]

I thought the Guy Ritchie movies got the characters absolutely right!

You mean like the part where Watson punches Holmes when he makes a sly jab at him? Yeah, some real fidelity to the source material there.

(I'm not saying it's horrible, or even that such a spin on the characters doesn't have its place. But to say that it accurately portrayed Doyle's heroes is just objectively and pathetically false.)

True, Dr. Watson may never have punched Sherlock Holmes in the face in the original stories. But what I was referring to was the Guy Ritchie movies recapturing the pricklyness of Holmes & the strong confidence of Watson. Both of those personalities came across so strongly in the early Doyle stories. IMO, the Guy Ritchie movies bring those back to the forefront, undoing the decades worth of damage that Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce did to the characters' reputations.

 

[Gaith]

True, Dr. Watson may never have punched Sherlock Holmes in the face in the original stories.

Nor would any self-respecting women of the times have tossed a glass of wine in someone's face at a restaurant, far less one of her social betters. And about a hundred other examples.

IMO, the Guy Ritchie movies bring those back to the forefront, undoing the decades worth of damage that Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce did to the characters' reputations.

By swapping one sort of damage for other another?

John Hammond: Don't worry, I'm not making the same mistakes again.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, you're making all new ones.
​

 

[Levi]

Americianized movies that had nothing to do with Americia but they make it seem like it was all their idea and how America takes such an Americanized stereotyped approach to anything that isn't Americian.
It actually doesn't offend me really, just annoying that the majority of movies these days only ever deals with the U.S.
If aliens visit, they go to Americia.
If theres a world ending event, only Americia can stop it.
The world goes to war? Only an Americian can end it
Mad man on the loose? Must be from another country, because only heros come from the US.
Transformers, intelligent life from deep space that have explored the galaxy... well, they better go to the US too because no other country is worth it.
Yes I get they do add other countries to the movies, like in Transformers and such, but its always like in the corner of these screen, and luck to be mentioned once, or only if u can recognize the uniform.
And yes, I do know there are movies out there that dont fit into this. Im just talking about the average movie thats always on TV or the majority of movies that seem to come out today. I know theyre all mostly made in Hollywood.

Like I said, not so much Offensive as its just annoying.
Just sayin.

 

[Owain Taggart]

IMO, the Guy Ritchie movies bring those back to the forefront, undoing the decades worth of damage that Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce did to the characters' reputations.

Honestly, I felt it was focused way too much on that, to the point of being caricatures. There are ways to do it more subtly while still being faithful to the material.

 

[Melakon]

Independence Day was one of the few films that offended me simply due to its heights of absurdity. The President of the United States climbing into a fighter jet to defeat the aliens was the capper. Then a friend who thought it was the greatest movie ever made tried to tell me the film was full of religious symbolism.

 

[BigJake]

Incidentally:

The ones that really get under my skin are either the epic falsifications, malignant mythmaking movies like The Birth of a Nation or Gone With the Wind, or the really topical ones that lie about current affairs, things like Zero Dark Thirty.

What offends me, is any film with an anti-intellectual agenda. Any film that portrays the act of thinking as something horrid and to be ashamed of. Forrest Gump is a good, literal example but most action blockbusters fall for it too.

... completely agree with these. They're movies that are well-made enough to entertain and acquire an audience, and yet have a message that is outright evil and will send some portion of their audiences out into the world believing things that make the world a worse place.

Zero Dark Thirty is a really bad one, because its lies about torture and the hunt for bin Laden have had an unmistakable impact on acceptance for torture. 300 went beyond being war porn* and actually outright, openly fomented hatred and celebrated the Fascist Virtues. Passion of the Christ's anti-Semitism was so blatant it was shocking. And most certainly the message of Forrest Gump is "the truly good American does not think."

Spoiler: *

Though the whole gung-ho War Is Awesome bracket of filmmaking is a bit gross and contributes heavily to some seriously bullshit views in the wider populace.

For sheer level of offensive chutzpah, though, I'd have to go for movies that use rape and torture for titillation while pretending outrage. Stuff like Strange Days or Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS, the last of which is of course an "exploitation classic" and actually had the balls to claim to be “dedicated with the hope that these heinous crimes will never occur again.”

 

[Gaith]

IMO, the Guy Ritchie movies bring those back to the forefront, undoing the decades worth of damage that Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce did to the characters' reputations.

Honestly, I felt it was focused way too much on that, to the point of being caricatures. There are ways to do it more subtly while still being faithful to the material.

Also, those aforementioned movies are seventy years old now, and while young people still read Doyle's Holmes, I've never had a conversation with anyone under the age of 50 about the Rathbone movies. So, was the "clumsy Watson" trope really one that still needed radical correcting, or were Ritchie and his gang strategically lambasting mostly forgotten movies' infidelities as a way of deflecting talk away from their own, just as significant liberties?

... Oh, look, I just answered my own question.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Independence Day was one of the few films that offended me simply due to its heights of absurdity. The President of the United States climbing into a fighter jet to defeat the aliens was the capper. Then a friend who thought it was the greatest movie ever made tried to tell me the film was full of religious symbolism.

I love it for those same exact reasons. It's the finest example of shlock the 90s ever produced.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Independence Day was one of the few films that offended me simply due to its heights of absurdity. The President of the United States climbing into a fighter jet to defeat the aliens was the capper.

I doubt the writers meant it as absurd. They probably saw it as the honorable thing to do. I just doubt Loggia's character, or what was left of the government would realistically allow it.

They even have a line of dialogue about how he can't talk President Bill Pullman out of it, so they seem to be aware of it. They just went with the cool factor of the President flying into battle. But this is a movie where a man who was abducted by aliens is mocked for it even when those same aliens have showed up and destroyed most if not all of the major cities.

Also the alien attack craft are controlled by two joy sticks and nothing else. Most video games have a higher difficulty level. But Will Smith saw them flying around and has a decent idea of what they are capable of, so he can fly one without a day of training.

It's a monument to stupid movies and I hate that I love it, despite truly hating other similar movies by the same people (2012 and The Day After Tomorrow). I don't know if its a nostalgia thing since I was young when it came out, but the stupider it gets the more I love it.

Also Brent Spiner plays a hippie scientist who becomes a meat puppet.

 

[JarodRussell]

They didn't take the entire film seriously. They took the whole idea of flying saucers and made a big budget parody out of it. Emmerich himself saw it that way. That's why they turned flying saucers into the biggest fucking flying saucers you've ever seen. They turned those typical 50s death rays that those saucers always shot at humans to the extreme maximum, wiping out entire cities with one blow. That's why the drunk crop duster who got sexually assaulted by aliens return the favor by flying up their asses, err, primary weapon.


BUT I don't see how it would be that ridiculous that the President, who had been established as having been a jet fighter pilot during Vietnam (just like the crop duster, and a lot of others they recruited just before the battle), returned to fly a jet plane. What else would you have him do? It was either all or nothing. I mean if you are about to get wiped out, why not do it?


And the virus thing is easily explained when you think that they based all human computer technology on what they found in the alien scout ship. Which is also the reason why the aliens were able to use the Earth satellites to communicate.

 

[bigdaddy]

The planet is begin attacked by aliens, billions are dead, society has fallen, they were out of pilots so the president hopped in and flew because he was a pilot.

I think what is more ridiculous is in real life we haven't had a veteran president in over 20 years.

 

[Melakon]

Well, Dubya had National Guard experience or something didn't he? Normally I wouldn't consider that being a veteran, but after NG troops were being shipped overseas that sort of muddles things a bit. Do National Guard members qualify for veterans' benefits?

 

[BigJake]

Well, Dubya had National Guard experience or something didn't he?

 

[Melakon]

^ When the Vietnam war (officially a "police action") was still going strong, joining the Guard was seen by some as a way to avoid the draft and getting sent overseas.

 

[BigJake]

^ It certainly was. And famously, Dubya barely even bothered to show up for his out.

 

[MacLeod]

I thought the Guy Ritchie movies got the characters absolutely right!

You mean like the part where Watson punches Holmes when he makes a sly jab at him? Yeah, some real fidelity to the source material there.

(I'm not saying it's horrible, or even that such a spin on the characters doesn't have its place. But to say that it accurately portrayed Doyle's heroes is just objectively and pathetically false.)

True, Dr. Watson may never have punched Sherlock Holmes in the face in the original stories. But what I was referring to was the Guy Ritchie movies recapturing the pricklyness of Holmes & the strong confidence of Watson. Both of those personalities came across so strongly in the early Doyle stories. IMO, the Guy Ritchie movies bring those back to the forefront, undoing the decades worth of damage that Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce did to the characters' reputations.

Hadn't the Granada TV series which ran from 1984-1994 already done that? And it's a fair bet that more people where more familiar with this version of Holmes than the Rathbone versions (at least in the UK).

 

[doubleohfive]

Captivity (2007) starring Elisha Cuthbert is pretty damn reprehensible.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Hadn't the Granada TV series which ran from 1984-1994 already done that? And it's a fair bet that more people where more familiar with this version of Holmes than the Rathbone versions (at least in the UK).

Pretty much, considering that TV series and its episodes were adaptations of the original stories. From what I remember, it was pretty faithful.

 

[Showdown]

Anvilicious + Politics = offends Showdown

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

You mean like the part where Watson punches Holmes when he makes a sly jab at him? Yeah, some real fidelity to the source material there.

(I'm not saying it's horrible, or even that such a spin on the characters doesn't have its place. But to say that it accurately portrayed Doyle's heroes is just objectively and pathetically false.)

True, Dr. Watson may never have punched Sherlock Holmes in the face in the original stories. But what I was referring to was the Guy Ritchie movies recapturing the pricklyness of Holmes & the strong confidence of Watson. Both of those personalities came across so strongly in the early Doyle stories. IMO, the Guy Ritchie movies bring those back to the forefront, undoing the decades worth of damage that Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce did to the characters' reputations.

Hadn't the Granada TV series which ran from 1984-1994 already done that? And it's a fair bet that more people where more familiar with this version of Holmes than the Rathbone versions (at least in the UK).

I've never been able to take the Granada TV show seriously. Jeremy Brett's performance is just so mannered and inauthentic. And the glacial pacing is appalling, especially considering Doyle was a writer with a great sense for keeping things moving.