Movies you refuse to see for personal reasons

[eabaker]

The Godzilla Polygon Trilogy: Ugh, look I'm sorry to beat like, the deadest of dead horses, but I just can't bring myself to sit down and watch these films. I'm not gonna go a on a tirade and say that the ideas they had weren't good, or there wasn't some stuff I liked, but I'm not gonna bore myself through a triple slogfest just to get to them.

I'm a little confused by this entry, as some of your phrasing suggests that you have seen these movies.

Oof. I thought maybe it was okay to talk about films you saw once and never again, but that's probably not what this thread is about.

Well, I mean, it's okay, in the sense that it's not gonna get you a warning or anything.

I'm just a pedantic pain in the ass sometimes.

[Leviarex]

'The Lost World '60'. Even as a kid, dinosaurs portrayed by live reptiles didn't appeal to me.

[Spuro]

'The Lost World '60'. Even as a kid, dinosaurs portrayed by live reptiles didn't appeal to me.

(Nah, I get what you mean though. Those poor lizards.)

[LegendZilla]

^They need to take more advantage of modern technology with Dinosaurs more often. I’ve had it with with Jurassic Park’s monopoly over them.

[GodzillaFan1990's]

Carnosaur notably could use a remake, one more faithful to the novel.

[JAGzilla]

It isn't as easy to make a dinosaur movie nowadays. Generally speaking, if they're going to be in a movie they'll be serving as killer monsters that eat people. But paleontology and our understanding of dinosaurs have evolved tremendously in the last few decades. We see them not as vicious, primitive brutes from a cruder bygone time, but as... animals, as complex as any today and with all the associated needs and behaviors and frailties. They aren't killer monsters any more than lions or elephants are, and their portrayals in the Jurassic World movies look increasingly ridiculous.

[mikelcho]

Carnosaur notably could use a remake, one more faithful to the novel.

Did you know that Valancourt Books has re-released the novel in paperback?

It's revealed on the website Too Much Horror Fiction on 4-1-22 (www.toomuchhorrorfictionblogspot.com (and rest assured, this is not - I repeat - not an April Fool's joke!)).

[GodzillaFan1990's]

It isn't as easy to make a dinosaur movie nowadays. Generally speaking, if they're going to be in a movie they'll be serving as killer monsters that eat people. But paleontology and our understanding of dinosaurs have evolved tremendously in the last few decades. We see them not as vicious, primitive brutes from a cruder bygone time, but as... animals, as complex as any today and with all the associated needs and behaviors and frailties. They aren't killer monsters any more than lions or elephants are, and their portrayals in the Jurassic World movies look increasingly ridiculous.

Probably why we hadn't gotten other dinosaur films theatrical-wise notably creature features/killer animal flicks.

[Thatguy4683]

It isn't as easy to make a dinosaur movie nowadays. Generally speaking, if they're going to be in a movie they'll be serving as killer monsters that eat people. But paleontology and our understanding of dinosaurs have evolved tremendously in the last few decades. We see them not as vicious, primitive brutes from a cruder bygone time, but as... animals, as complex as any today and with all the associated needs and behaviors and frailties. They aren't killer monsters any more than lions or elephants are, and their portrayals in the Jurassic World movies look increasingly ridiculous.

Personally I fine on how they were portrayal in JW, I do get your point though

[darthzilla99]

It isn't as easy to make a dinosaur movie nowadays. Generally speaking, if they're going to be in a movie they'll be serving as killer monsters that eat people. But paleontology and our understanding of dinosaurs have evolved tremendously in the last few decades. We see them not as vicious, primitive brutes from a cruder bygone time, but as... animals, as complex as any today and with all the associated needs and behaviors and frailties. They aren't killer monsters any more than lions or elephants are, and their portrayals in the Jurassic World movies look increasingly ridiculous.

I think part of the challenge is that the movie ideas for dinosaurs are really exhausted and tab out while the JW movies have filled the spectacle aspect of dinosaurs for the GA. Anytime you do a dinosaurs being brought back to modern times is going to draw comparisons to JW. Also the lost world has been so many times as well.

I do think a Dinosaurs Attack! movie could be made, but then that makes them killer monsters again.

[LegendZilla]

[Pic][/Pic]^I think it would be awesome to see a story of Dinosaurs in a Animal Farm or Watership Down type-scenario. Also, if Genndy Tartakovsky’s Primal thought us anything, Dino-zombies can be a thing.

[Spuro]

It isn't as easy to make a dinosaur movie nowadays. Generally speaking, if they're going to be in a movie they'll be serving as killer monsters that eat people. But paleontology and our understanding of dinosaurs have evolved tremendously in the last few decades. We see them not as vicious, primitive brutes from a cruder bygone time, but as... animals, as complex as any today and with all the associated needs and behaviors and frailties. They aren't killer monsters any more than lions or elephants are, and their portrayals in the Jurassic World movies look increasingly ridiculous.

To add to this, there's only so many plot-lines you can use to justify humans meeting dinosaurs. Lost worlds, genetic engineering, time travel, maybe a fantasy setting. The problem is most of those ideas have been done to death, especially genetic engineering and lost world scenarios (as much as I adore the latter).

[Leviarex]

To add to this, there's only so many plot-lines you can use to justify humans meeting dinosaurs. Lost worlds, genetic engineering, time travel, maybe a fantasy setting. The problem is most of those ideas have been done to death, especially genetic engineering and lost world scenarios (as much as I adore the latter).

Well, 'Land of the Lost' was fairly unique regarding human, dinosaur meetings in that it involved a parallel/alternate universe. As far as I know that idea hasn't really been done much by anyone else.

[Gojira1604]

TV shows that are trendy, mostly from Netflix.

[John Pannozzi]

I also refuse to support Paramount+'s exclusive Star Trek content not just because the content itself looks and sounds awful, but because I hate the idea of Trek among all things stuck behind a paywall.

FWIW, most of the Paramount+ Trek shows have received Blu-ray releases. That's more you can say for, for example, any of Disney+'s original shows or movies.

[mikelcho]

To add to this, there's only so many plot-lines you can use to justify humans meeting dinosaurs. Lost worlds, genetic engineering, time travel, maybe a fantasy setting. The problem is most of those ideas have been done to death, especially genetic engineering and lost world scenarios (as much as I adore the latter).

Well, 'Land of the Lost' was fairly unique regarding human, dinosaur meetings in that it involved a parallel/alternate universe. As far as I know that idea hasn't really been done much by anyone else.

Was this done in both versions of Land of the Lost, or just the first one?

And I may be wrong here, but IIRC, there was a fire-breathing Dimetrodon (or something similar) and a two-headed Brontosaurus in the first version. Am I right or not?

[Leviarex]

To add to this, there's only so many plot-lines you can use to justify humans meeting dinosaurs. Lost worlds, genetic engineering, time travel, maybe a fantasy setting. The problem is most of those ideas have been done to death, especially genetic engineering and lost world scenarios (as much as I adore the latter).

Well, 'Land of the Lost' was fairly unique regarding human, dinosaur meetings in that it involved a parallel/alternate universe. As far as I know that idea hasn't really been done much by anyone else.

Was this done in both versions of Land of the Lost, or just the first one?

And I may be wrong here, but IIRC, there was a fire-breathing Dimetrodon (or something similar) and a two-headed Brontosaurus in the first version. Am I right or not?

Both versions. And while the first one did feature a fire breathing Dimetrodon, the two headed creature you're thinking of was actually an Elasmosaurus:

https://tvdatabase.fandom.com/wiki/Lulu_the_dinosaur

[mikelcho]

Well, 'Land of the Lost' was fairly unique regarding human, dinosaur meetings in that it involved a parallel/alternate universe. As far as I know that idea hasn't really been done much by anyone else.

Was this done in both versions of Land of the Lost, or just the first one?

And I may be wrong here, but IIRC, there was a fire-breathing Dimetrodon (or something similar) and a two-headed Brontosaurus in the first version. Am I right or not?

Both versions. And while the first one did feature a fire breathing Dimetrodon, the two headed creature you're thinking of was actually an Elasmosaurus:

https://tvdatabase.fandom.com/wiki/Lulu_the_dinosaur

Ah, thanks for the info! Did the fire-breather have a name, too?

UPDATE: Never mind, I just found out its name is Torchy.

[Spuro]

Rosemary's Baby.

I'm a big Horror fan, and I understand that Rosemary's Baby is both highly acclaimed and considered an important touchstone for the genre.

But I cannot justify watching a movie directed by a convicted and unrepentant child rapist. It doesn't matter how much I like the Horror genre. Any shred of artistic talent that might be in that movie would be overshadowed by the real-life horror that Polanski committed.

[Major sssspielberg!]

^ I'm in the same boat. "Separate the art from the artist" used to be my motto about such things but let's be real: artists must put deep aspects of themselves into their art in order for their art to happen. So I find it hard to separate Polanski, or Woody Allen, or Kevin Spacey for instance from their art.