Movies That are Going to Suck: Part Deux

Nothing compared to this.



Yep, a story of a man struggling to make a living and yearning to explore the Earth, leaving Nowheresville, USA, becomes the story of some rich New Yorker douchebag who... something... penguins happen. Yeah.

It could be worse. Jim Carrey could be playing the penguins too.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want any film to tank (save some exceptions, but that's neither here nor there)...but when I think about someone making a live-action Captain Planet film, the word FAIL starts blinking in my head, bright-red.

I had my doubts about X-Men, back in the day, and the source material was (imho) way cooler. That franchise took off, so who knows.

Captain Planet, though....hmpf. I don't know.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I have a bad feeling about this one.

Oh, wow, Captain Planet. I used to love that cartoon when I was little. Didn't understand a thing that was going on, but I loved it nonetheless.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Hee. So, wait, because the results of adaptation are unpredictable and, y'know, sometimes even good source material produces awful movies, it's totally cool to go and dismiss a movie solely because the source material is bad, without any and all intel on how the adaptation will handle the materials.

Funny, I hear a Captain Planet fanboy going "BAAAWWWW you guys are mean!"

Jay/Cris wrote:

Complaining about the fact that Captain Planet is getting a movie at this stage is not so much snarking at particular choices made in the development of the movie, but it's more simple whinging, especially considering the fact that the source material isn't universally revolted, but more a guilty pleasure.

Seriously. This is what you have: "I hear they're making a movie of Captain Planet and that in itself sucks!" Yeah. I'm gonna stick with 'weak'.

That's not what I said at all, but whatever. Some of us would prefer our guilty pleasures to stay, well, pleasures, rather than having our childhood entertainment become a painful embarrassment to pop culture. Then again, this board has struck me as pretty masochistic at times, so...*shrug*

Azzandra wrote:

Oh, wow, Captain Planet. I used to love that cartoon when I was little. Didn't understand a thing that was going on, but I loved it nonetheless.

...Really? How old were you when you watched it? It wasn't that hard to follow...

Owlish wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Hee. So, wait, because the results of adaptation are unpredictable and, y'know, sometimes even good source material produces awful movies, it's totally cool to go and dismiss a movie solely because the source material is bad, without any and all intel on how the adaptation will handle the materials.

Funny, I hear a Captain Planet fanboy going "BAAAWWWW you guys are mean!"

Funny, I hear someone resorting to hyperbole because they can't string together a decent counter-argument.

Owlish wrote:

Azzandra wrote:

Oh, wow, Captain Planet. I used to love that cartoon when I was little. Didn't understand a thing that was going on, but I loved it nonetheless.

...Really? How old were you when you watched it? It wasn't that hard to follow...

Dunno. Maybe three years old? Add to that the fact that I didn't know English very well, and the environment was not a big concern in my country, and the whole thing was utterly incomprehensible to me, beyond the fact that it was about a blue guy who sprouted out five rings. I remember thinking that they'd made up the word "recycling" for the show, because I'd never seen anyone doing anything like they were describing (and in fact, we didn't start separating out garbage in Romania until a few years ago).

Jay/Cris wrote:

The Scientist wrote:

This, a live-action film? Boy howdy, this is soooo gonna tank. It's a stillborn, right there and then.

Yes. Silly premises have never been remodelled into successfull concepts. That Buffy the Vampire Slayer series was just as bad as the film.

I'm not saying this movie will be good. But with the right plot, the right rewriting and the right characterization, it could be less than half bad. This premature ranting on How Much It's Gonna Suck on the flimsy basis of the original alone is just that: premature, flimsy and kind of weak.

Actually, if you played it as a comedy poking fun at the doofiness of its source, Captain Planet could work. Just have it acknowledge the original show was silly as hell and run with it. That way it doesn't have to drastically alter itself to be taken seriously, but it can still have entertainment value for the broader audience.

Azzandra wrote:

I remember thinking that they'd made up the word "recycling" for the show, because I'd never seen anyone doing anything like they were describing (and in fact, we didn't start separating out garbage in Romania until a few years ago).

Wow. Too bad about the language barrier, because otherwise it sounds like you were a better target demographic than I was. So much of that show like duuuuuuuur, I know already!

Jay/Cris wrote:

I'm not saying this movie will be good. But with the right plot, the right rewriting and the right characterization, it could be less than half bad./This premature ranting on How Much It's Gonna Suck on the flimsy basis of the original alone is just that: premature, flimsy and kind of weak.

These two sentences right next to each other, one right after the other, it boggles. It's like two different people contained in one post. The best endorsement you're willing to give it is "less than half bad," but everyone else's comments are "premature ranting on a flimsy basis"?

Jay/Cris wrote:

Hee. So, wait, because the results of adaptation are unpredictable and, y'know, sometimes even good source material produces awful movies, it's totally cool to go and dismiss a movie solely because the source material is bad, without any and all intel on how the adaptation will handle the materials.

Sometimes good source material produces awful movies, yes. When has terrible source material ever produced a good--not even good, how about a decent movie? No one here has yet said "this movie is going to suck definitively!" It's more general, uncomfortable squirming and low expectations.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Seriously. This is what you have: "I hear they're making a movie of Captain Planet and that in itself sucks!" Yeah. I'm gonna stick with 'weak'.

Hullo there, Scarecrow! Seriously, how are you not hearing the fanboy in this?

Jay/Cris wrote:

Funny, I hear someone resorting to hyperbole because they can't string together a decent counter-argument.

The better to entertain you, dahlin'

Azzandra wrote:

Dunno. Maybe three years old? Add to that the fact that I didn't know English very well, and the environment was not a big concern in my country, and the whole thing was utterly incomprehensible to me, beyond the fact that it was about a blue guy who sprouted out five rings. I remember thinking that they'd made up the word "recycling" for the show, because I'd never seen anyone doing anything like they were describing (and in fact, we didn't start separating out garbage in Romania until a few years ago).

Oh wow, you're a baby. I feel old now. lol So you were ahead of the recycling trend, eh?

Owlish wrote:

Sometimes good source material produces awful movies, yes. When has terrible source material ever produced a good--not even good, how about a decent movie? No one here has yet said "this movie is going to suck definitively!" It's more general, uncomfortable squirming and low expectations.

I'll say it, if you like.

This movie is going to suck.

And damn right I have low expectations. Captain Planet wasn't exactly a stellar show, regardless of animation. The climax of every episode was in summoning Captain Planet to sort everything out - the kids never sorted it out themselves. At worst they had some difficulty finding their rings. Not exactly the best example to set your kids.

I can't see the funding for the movie being too great either, you know, what with going up against all those powerful polluting industries.

Damn right, pollution is bad. But we are not going to solve it by standing around summoning blue superheroes.

Owlish wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

I'm not saying this movie will be good. But with the right plot, the right rewriting and the right characterization, it could be less than half bad./This premature ranting on How Much It's Gonna Suck on the flimsy basis of the original alone is just that: premature, flimsy and kind of weak.

These two sentences right next to each other, one right after the other, it boggles. It's like two different people contained in one post. The best endorsement you're willing to give it is "less than half bad," but everyone else's comments are "premature ranting on a flimsy basis"?

You know how modal verbs operate, don'tcha? The thing I take issue with is the fact that the prevailing sentiment seems to be 'This movie will be bad no matter what', whereas I'm more like 'It could be bad, but it could be good too, given the right treatment'. So, wait, you're saying that making snap judgements is proper, well-thought out behaviour?

Owlish wrote:

Sometimes good source material produces awful movies, yes. When has terrible source material ever produced a good--not even good, how about a decent movie?

Never, because terrible source material usually doesn't get picked up. (Twilight being the exception.) Mediocre source material, however, has produced plenty a decent movie or show: Battle Royale, The Addams Family, The Green Hornet; Jaws, Bambi... Generally, any adaptation where the derivative work has eclipsed the source material falls into either the source being too obscure or being too mediocre. Mileage may vary, of course.

Owlish wrote:

No one here has yet said "this movie is going to suck definitively!" It's more general, uncomfortable squirming and low expectations.

TheScientist wrote:

Boy howdy, this is soooo gonna tank. It's a stillborn, right there and then.

Ayup.

Owlish wrote:

Jay/Cris wrote:

Seriously. This is what you have: "I hear they're making a movie of Captain Planet and that in itself sucks!" Yeah. I'm gonna stick with 'weak'.

Hullo there, Scarecrow! Seriously, how are you not hearing the fanboy in this?

Yes. 'I'm holding off judgement until more info becomes available' translates to 'fanboy'. Lovely logic.

I agree with you Jay. Who the fuck knows?

Me! I know!

It's gonna blow chunks! I'm arranging a raffle/thing!

Jay/Cris wrote:

Owlish wrote:

No one here has yet said "this movie is going to suck definitively!" It's more general, uncomfortable squirming and low expectations.

TheScientist wrote:

Boy howdy, this is soooo gonna tank. It's a stillborn, right there and then.

Ayup.

Ok, I did apparently gloss over that comment...

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I can't see the funding for the movie being too great either, you know, what with going up against all those powerful polluting industries.

Because it's not like the Fifth-most expensive movie of all time was just as preachy.
or like Ted Turner (the mastermind behind the original TV Show) has a net worth of $1.9 Billion and a media mouthpiece second only to Rupert Murdoch.

Ignorance spews from your mouth like water from a firefighters hose.

I haven't watched the Smurfs cartoon except for maybe 1 or 2 episodes on Boomerang when I was young, but I'm pretty sure this movie is...

1) Going to be an abortion

and 2) have almost nothing in common with the original show.

This basically looks like the trailer for every bad family comedy* movie ever made, it just so happens the main characters are tiny and blue and wear white hats.





* I use comedy in the same way a Friedberg and Seltzer movie is a comedy. It's supposed to be funny, but all the jokes are just pop culture references (with "smurf" put into them) and tired sight gags and pratfalls that are certain to not be funny to anyone with an IQ in the double digits.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

I haven't watched the Smurfs cartoon except for maybe 1 or 2 episodes on Boomerang when I was young, but I'm pretty sure this movie is...

1) Going to be an abortion

and 2) have almost nothing in common with the original show.

It's actually worse: they rape canon. Found on the Wiki:

'In the beginning of the film, Narrator Smurf tells the audience about the Blue Moon Festival, where every Smurf prepares to sing the Smurf theme song, almost every Smurf. Gutsy Smurf and Grouchy Smurf tell Clumsy Smurf he's on the "Don't Not Let In" list because he is too accident prone.

Meanwhile, Papa Smurf sees a vision, showing Clumsy with a dragon wand, the Smurfs in cages, and Gargamel having ultimate power. Worried that this may happen, Papa does not let Clumsy pick Smurf Roots. Refusing to listen, Clumsy does so anyway.

Gargamel soon finds Clumsy and chases after him. Clumsy leads Gargamel into the hidden Smurf village, and Gargamel destroys it. Running from Gargamel, Clumsy accidentally goes the wrong way, and some of the other Smurfs go after him and leap into a magic portal and finally discover New York City.

They take shelter with a young married couple (Patrick and Grace Winslow), who are expecting a baby. The Smurfs have to return to the Middle Ages and stop Gargamel. With the help of Patrick and Grace, the Smurfs eventually defeat Gargamel.'

Yes, reading this really makes me want to see this movie.

There is a Smurfs comic about Blue Moon Festival. ALL Smurfs are in it, and they are supposed to number exactly 100. This is the comic that has the vain smurf (I have no idea what he's called in English) create a twin from a mirror after it's been struck by lightning. The twin is the 100th smurf and is joyously accepted by Papa smurf. However, the mirror twin can't do the Blue Moon Dance right because he does everything, well, mirrored. In the end, all turns out right and we then have 100 smurfs doing that dance.

There is no way in hell Papa smurf would prohibit another smurf participating in one of their weird smurfy rituals.

What I also hate about the idea of this movie is that Gargamel follows the smurfs because...? I have no clue. In the comics and the tv series, he wants to eat them. Sure, use them in recipes, but mainly eat them. They took that out of the movie because it might be too scary for kiddies. The fuck??? The original series was for toddlers! If they could watch it without flinching, surely kiddies nowadays can too!

'Clumsy leads Gargamel into the hidden Smurf village, and Gargamel destroys it. Running from Gargamel, Clumsy accidentally goes the wrong way, and some of the other Smurfs go after him and leap into a magic portal and finally discover New York City.'

WAT HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY SOUND LIKE A GOOD PLOT

'They take shelter with a young married couple (Patrick and Grace Winslow), who are expecting a baby. The Smurfs have to return to the Middle Ages and stop Gargamel. With the help of Patrick and Grace, the Smurfs eventually defeat Gargamel.'

Because Gargamel is going to eat the newborn? I know, I know, I should probably watch it.
No. No, sorry, I'm not prepared to have my childhood bumraped and shat upon. I dig that the smurfs come from the middle ages. But why god why New Fucking York?
o hai there Belgians we just stole your franchise and made it American surely you don't mind kthanxbai. And why to this century? Why combined with real life actors? Why bother at all?

Dear John (my six-year-old nephew),

There is no way in HELL I'm taking you to the Smurfs movie, so don't even ask. Bribe your mother to do it.


Dear Ann (the mother),

Copious alcohol consumption will (hopefully) make this movie tolerable.

"And then we all eat Smurf. Soylent Blue."

It's not like the whole body-switch idea hasn't been done to death already, now let's add HOOKERS AND FART JOKES HURR HUUURRRR

Every time I see this commercial now I want to throw something at my tv. If this is the funniest movie of the summer, I'm going to crawl back under my rock now.

Owlish wrote:

It's not like the whole body-switch idea hasn't been done to death already, now let's add HOOKERS AND FART JOKES HURR HUUURRRR

Every time I see this commercial now I want to throw something at my tv. If this is the funniest movie of the summer, I'm going to crawl back under my rock now.

It's funny because he's cheating on his wife but it's ok because he's in another person's body.

And it's funny because the other guy is going to have sex with a woman who thinks he's someone else. Because it's not like that would be rape or anything.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

It's funny because he's cheating on his wife but it's ok because he's in another person's body.

And it's funny because the other guy is going to have sex with a woman who thinks he's someone else. Because it's not like that would be rape or anything.

Basically it's a frat boy's fantasy--one of those hilarious side-splitters he tells his friends when they ask him where he disappeared to last weekend and he doesn't want to admit he got plastered and passed out in a puddle of his own piss, then had to finish three papers on Sunday. And all of those other godawful "plot" points aside, the one thing I just can't wrap my brain around is, why? If these two guys' lives are so vastly different that they want to switch with each other, how and why do they maintain a friendship in the first place? One of those minor inconsequential plot points which is probably available if I cared to waste my life looking, but.


That and PREGNANT HOOKER HURR HURRRRR I just, fucking Christ...


I'm not prudish at all but I almost can't believe they were allowed to show that on daytime tv.

Owlish wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

It's funny because he's cheating on his wife but it's ok because he's in another person's body.

And it's funny because the other guy is going to have sex with a woman who thinks he's someone else. Because it's not like that would be rape or anything.

Basically it's a frat boy's fantasy--one of those hilarious side-splitters he tells his friends when they ask him where he disappeared to last weekend and he doesn't want to admit he got plastered and passed out in a puddle of his own piss, then had to finish three papers on Sunday. And all of those other godawful "plot" points aside, the one thing I just can't wrap my brain around is, why? If these two guys' lives are so vastly different that they want to switch with each other, how and why do they maintain a friendship in the first place? One of those minor inconsequential plot points which is probably available if I cared to waste my life looking, but.


That and PREGNANT HOOKER HURR HURRRRR I just, fucking Christ...


I'm not prudish at all but I almost can't believe they were allowed to show that on daytime tv.

Also, of course the guy who's married is a celibate, nebish square while the guy who's single is a mighty sex-lion who fucks bitches by the gallon every night. It's not like Casanova's ever get married, and it's definitely not like a single man would just be a repulsive neckbeard.

*Sigh* Christopher Nolan strikes out yet AGAIN with the Batman franchise.

OK, say your next Batman movie is set to feature Catwoman as one of the main characters. You cast Anne Hathaway, who's practically sex on legs. You have a costume design in the comic books by Darwyn Cooke that, with minimal tweaking, would work well as a live-action costume. Probably the easiest comics-to-film translation you could ask for. So what do you do?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Why, you put her on a workout regimen that eliminates her curves and remove any traces of "cat" from her outfit, of course!

Really? This is Catwoman? This could just as easily be the Baroness. Or Emma Peel. Or Black Widow with night-vision goggles. Or the chick from Underworld. Or any bimbo from a generic heist movie. There's nothing here that even remotely suggests Catwoman. What, a cat-eared hood was too "comic-booky" for you, Nolan? And honestly, the last time Anne Hathaway looked this weedy, she was stressed out because her then-boyfriend was caught in an embezzling scheme. This is just bullshit. She already had the Catwoman body going before this. Why make her look like a beanpole now? Doesn't that kinda go against the whole point of casting her in the first place?

Oh, wait. I forgot. Christopher Nolan's a fucking moron who wouldn't know a decent Batman story or adaptation, or even common sense, if it kicked him in the balls. That explains everything.