Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

What movie would you travel though time to prevent and why?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 132 posts in this discussion
Posted on Aug 16, 2012 12:03:20 PM PDT
E. Hernandez says:
I would murder roland emmerich from re-making Godzilla.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 11:12:29 AM PDT
Mike Gordan says:
WAS: ''[Titanic]'s still The Poseidon Adventure Meets Romeo And Juliet. And it's still junk.''

Agree to...kinda...sorta disagree...I guess? You have a point...but such comparison would be an insult to both Poseidon Adventure AND Romeo and Juliet. An addition to your comparison: It's The Poseidon Adventure meets Romeo and Juliet if it were written by Twitards (yes, I know; Twilight didn't exist back then, but hopefully, you get my point).

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 9:34:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 16, 2012 9:36:03 AM PDT
WAS: Sorry to disappoint, but I don't watch television or cable. Occasionally I'll watch a baseball game or an awards ceremony, but I don't find myself getting interested in shows as I did before (I used to watch Law and Order at times). I don't despise NCIS, but I can't find myself sitting down to watch several episodes.

Posted on Aug 16, 2012 8:48:17 AM PDT
PoM: Are you a fan of NCIS? If so, you will know about Gibbs and his rules. Mine are similar. You find them out as they are necessarily revealed. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 8:34:25 AM PDT
WAS: I'm almost afraid to ask about how many dominant principles you have.

Posted on Aug 16, 2012 8:33:34 AM PDT
PoM: You may ask for number 0, the dominant principle: No film is good without a well-written, intelligent, plausible screenplay.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 8:23:16 AM PDT
WAS: May I ask what number 3 is?

Posted on Aug 16, 2012 8:21:06 AM PDT
Pom: re Winslet:

Give me a break.

Critical principle number two: nude scenes never improve a film.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 8:04:44 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Aug 16, 2012 8:07:30 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 8:03:56 AM PDT
PoM: And that's worthwhile? Sorry, not in my book.

It's still The Poseidon Adventure Meets Romeo And Juliet. And it's still junk.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 8:02:39 AM PDT
Lev: re Birth of a Nation: And in so doing you would destroy a great work of art, and a film that created much of the modern vocabulary of film. You can't blame the film for the second incarnation of the Klan; many other forces were at work, including the novel on which the film was based. Birth of a Nation is a product of its times, rather than an activator.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 7:57:34 AM PDT
WAS: I'm not saying it made Titanic good. But it helped the film from being a zero to maybe at least a 2.5.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 16, 2012 7:56:27 AM PDT
PoM: A core critical principle for me: great special effects do not redeem lousy films.

It's the capodimonte principle--elaborate craft is not necessarily art.

Posted on Aug 16, 2012 6:20:38 AM PDT
Lev says:
I would prevent 'Birth of a Nation'. Membership in the KKK had dwindled to almost nothing before this film and skyrocketed after its premiere. Fewer people would have been lynched if this movie had never been made, and civil rights would have advanced more quickly and less violently.

Has any American film done more harm than 'Birth of a Nation'?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2012 7:25:12 PM PDT
Balok says:

> Can you imagine the uproar a film like that would cause?

I doubt that it would cause very much. It's just that, as I said previously, I have a hard time with the "time traveler changes history" genre (except for that one Halloween episode of _The Simpsons_) because of its fundamental logical inconsistency. Better that some actual historical event turns out to have been the result of a time traveller's meddling -- not that that is such an original idea either. There's even a short-short by Isaac Asimov in which a time traveller goes back to observe World War 2, and leaves behind a note that he, Kilroy, had been there.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2012 7:07:18 PM PDT
Can you imagine the uproar a film like that would cause?

Can you imagine how much Money that means it would make!?!

Posted on Aug 15, 2012 4:55:56 PM PDT
I think it's general agreement though that however much the James Cameron movie is despised on this forum, it is at least not as unbearable as Titanic: The Animated Musical.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2012 1:05:37 PM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
I'm sure the aspects you disparge were the ones that guaranteed its commercial success. There was Titanic movie made for NBC that was closer to what you describe with multiple plot-lines, many of them fact-based. It starred Catherine Zeta-Jone before she became quite famous.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2012 12:31:40 PM PDT
WAS: Nothing will redeem the screenplay, that's for sure. But the actual sinking of the ship is one of the great achievements in visual effects. And the fact that Cameron could do that is the reason that despite my dislike of Titanic, I'd still rather watch it than Avatar.

Posted on Aug 15, 2012 10:45:18 AM PDT
PoM: Sorry, PoM,but I'm going to be a bit cranky for a moment, in the service of the greater good. "Visual filmmaking"? Isn't that just a tautology, since film is (surprise!!!!!) a visual medium?

Do you mean--it has a striking visual style, like, say, Last Year At Marienbad? (big no there)
Do you mean--it advances the narrative by predominantly visual means, like the notable silent heist scene in Rififi? (bigger no there)
Or do you mean--it's full of big, splashy visual effects? (Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, of course, if IT ISN'T THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE FILM, as it almost invariably is with Cameron?) Titanic is just plain vulgar and witless, and no amount of eye candy can redeem it.

"Visual filmmaking" is a meaningless noise.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2012 9:11:58 AM PDT
Balok says:

> Though I do concede that Titanic is an excellent piece of visual film making.

I've never seen _Titanic_ and have no particular desire to do so. If I were going to make a _Titanic_ film, I'd probably make it in the "time traveler tries to fix problem, but causes one instead" genre: a time traveler from the future is sent back to the early 20th century to kill a person who, it turns out, was later to become a major force for evil. All of the time traveler's efforts fail, and in order to make the movie work, we have as a premise that his time in the past is limited. Finally, he realizes that the person in question is listed on the passenger manifest of the Titanic. He sees that his last chance to take care of business will be to sink the Titanic. He sets up the ship to sink in mid-ocean in a way that will look like it was struck by an iceberg. While he knows that the 1500 or so lives that will be lost when the ship sinks is a small price to pay for the millions he's saving, he cannot live with himself, and after rigging the ship to sink, commits suicide.

Cut to Vienna, where a young struggling artist just misses his train. "Now I won't be able to get to England on time to make the ship I was planning to take to the U.S. to pursue my art studies," he says to a friend. "There are plenty of ships to take," his friend replies. "Yes, but I had a non-refundable ticket, and who knows how long it will take me to save up enough money for another one." "Well, Adolph, I'm sure that you'll find something to do here in Vienna. . ."

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2012 8:26:02 AM PDT
WAS: My thoughts- why not greenlight Titanic only after major story changes? For example, don't make it Romeo & Juliet, and focus more on the life of every class on the ship!

Then again, I haven't seen it in about 2 years. Though I do concede that Titanic is an excellent piece of visual film making.

Posted on Aug 15, 2012 8:23:57 AM PDT
Gordo: Considering the safety improvements in ship design that the Titanic disaster spawned--do you really want to prevent it? I only want to prevent the sentimentalization, and inflation, of the tragedy.

The non-canonical Casino Royale is actually great fun. Yes, it really has nothing to do with the book, or the Bond cycle, but it's a still diverting exercise in pure silliness.

The current version of Metropolis fills in a great deal of footage--but the source is pretty damaged, as you will note when watching the film. And I would still like to know what Lang's absolutely original cut looked like.

I was watching Ed Wood last night, and it may be Ms. Parker's best performance. Although she's quite funny in The First Wives Club as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2012 6:29:49 PM PDT
Mike Gordan says:
WAS: I'll go a step further in regards to Titanic; rather than preventing studio execs from greenlighting it, why not prevent the tragic event entirely? You save thousands of lives, the Titanic may still be operational to this very day, and we'd never get a movie adaptation on the ship itself. Of course, we might wind up getting a Hindenberg movie from Cameron instead, or something else entirely will come our way, but it's a worthy trade-off in my books.

Completely agree with you on the uncut copies of Ambersons and Metropolis (though I thought all the once lost footage of the latter had been gathered together).

''The question is, are [dumb people] breeding faster than brains and beauty??''

I wonder if you'll be able to get into Idiocracy then. Tackles the very same question. Though you will have to at the very least be able to tolerate Mike Judge's previous work before you can enjoy this movie.

And frankly, I think many of you guys got Babs, Roberts and Parker down to a tee. In the case of the latter, the only works of hers that I have any liking for were her Tim Burton movies. Ed Wood is great, and frankly, I too would want time travelers to leave Mars Attack alone.

re: Casino Royale: I personally enjoyed the movie. Haven't seen Quantum of Solace yet, so there may in fact still be time for my opinions on the Daniel Craig Bond films to change. Kinda hard to measure based on one film. The 1967 film, however, was utter crap. David Niven, Peter Sellers, Orson Welles, and Woody Allen...all of them acted their parts well, but the film has such wretched pacing and disjointed writing and editing that their involvements were entirely irrelevent. Easily the worst film for all four actors (and perhaps thensome) AND one of the five directors, John Huston.

Now back to the Craig Bonds...I seriously doubt that Skyfall will bomb at the box office, but Quantum of Solace made no where near as much money as Casino Royale nor shared anywhere near as much critical acclaim. So if that trend continues, or this barely improves over QoS in either category, then obviously, studio execs are going to start taking issue with this and put the franchise on hold. This is especially since MGM is in a downhill financial spiral, and they need a big hit or its bust for them.

And speaking of which, I need to get back to my review retrospective on Countdown to Skyfall. Next movie for me to cover is From Russia with Love, and I'm glad I got the chance to (re)familiarize myself with all the bond films from Dr. No to Tomorrow Never Dies (plus the noncanon Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again). All I need to do now is reconfigure my tastes on the latter two Brosnan films AND Craig's Casino Royale, as well as finally get around to watching Quantum of Solace, and I'm all caught up on Bond.

C. J. Vasta: re: Nintendo: Yeah, the flop that was Super Mario Bros. did prevent Nintendo from handing over their other properties to Hollywood to this very day (that, and the Phillip CD-i's embarrassing Mario and Zelda titles). But don't forget that the Pokemon anime and movies are still being made to this day. Actually, getting rid of either or both would damage the video game movie tenfold and even moreso than the Resident Evil movies. But, I do think their legacy has done far more good than bad; the Pokemon franchise as a whole is first rate (even though the anime and movies are subpar at best...minus the Pikachu shorts), and I can't imagine the games being the same without either one. And considering nothing about the show or the movies are necessarily contemptible, I say that's a good trade-off.

And funny thing about Zelda and Metroid...I do think that, with the right techniques, writing and direction (and just enough acting to justify the whole thing), they could transition well into feature film. I would, however, recommend giving both of them their own unique plots, with only the characters and general ideas transitioning into film (kinda like a Bond movie or the many superhero films out there).

I could go on, but I think the video game movie deserves its own thread...if only I knew where to post it (here or on the video game forums).

Posted on Aug 12, 2012 3:26:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 12, 2012 3:27:29 PM PDT
Cavaradossi says:
Danny C. Johnson

I watched all the way to the end; I guarantee you did not miss anything by bailing early. In fact, it speaks highly of your intelligence! You can imagine what I think of my own for having stayed with it to the end!

I guess I thought it just had to get better some time.......
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Movie forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  31
Total posts:  132
Initial post:  Aug 6, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 16, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions