Most intellectually insulting movies you can think of

[SidheKnight]

Avatar, for all the people recommending me it I expected it to be at least decent. I like a decent range of Sci-fi from Star Trek to Star Wars and the Mass Effect series. Friends and my uncle were throwing roses at it, I heard people were suffering from depression because they'd never get to visit such an amazing world. So again I was expecting decent, I rarely get my hopes up for anything and this wasn't going to be anything different.

Avatar was just dumb, antagonists who are evil for the sake of it, alien victims with big eyes who are in tune with the nature and love it. What it boiled down to was TECHNOLOGY IS BAD AND NATURE IS GEWD! Ferngully was a more compelling tale.

It was so crap I walked out .......of my living room, but that's besides the point. It was dumb, nothing caught me, it wasn't a good plot, characters were dull, some of the things that happened were just freaking stupid. I felt like I was watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit with a shit story, 3D instead of 2D art, nice CG that stood out with real people.

I don't know why it gets the praise it does, it's not a good movie, it's not a good story, it wasn't smart or even competent. It was shit, I've had people try and explain why it was so great and nothing sells me on it.

^This.

All the people in this post are mentioning what they think are bad movies, but AVATAR is the ultimate example of a movie that completely insults the intelligence of the audience and yet get's praised as "deep" and "meaningful".

No. It's a stupid green aesop for 9 year olds. The characters are cartoonishly black and white good vs. evil. And the message of "evil westerners with their superior technology are bad guys and tribal peoples in touch with nature are noble" has been done to death in better films. Avatar is just visual SFX porn.

 

[Johnson McGee]

Man of Steel was intellectually insulting, but not the most. That one just sticks out in my recent memory. For one thing evolution doesn't work like that. And for another thing the whole eugenics thing was handled much better in an episode of Star Trek. And they didn't need to destroy a city to do it. In fact quite the opposite.

*Bolded for emphasis*

I would just like to expand on this point; I hate any movie (or any piece of media) that fundamentally fucks up the point of evolution. Evolution is adaptation to our environment over time, not some kind of road leading to apotheosis. It has many branching paths, not a single fucking line. Seriously, looking at all of sci-fi, I am amazed how so many fuck this point up at a basic level. From Star Trek, to Neon Genesis Evengelion, and even Mass Effect (which I love to death) all fuck this up to one degree or another.

I can't remember where I heard it but I really like the line 'evolution doesn't pick winners, it picks losers.' Easiest explanation to many arguments consisting beginning with 'if evolution is real why does...'

OT:

I'm pretty insulted whenever I see a movie that's being advertised with a black band across the top of the ad with #title in bold-ed white print. It's almost always some shitty comedy starring some shotgun array of A and B-list celebrities getting a paycheck. If the movie is good people will talk about it, stop trying to get dumb people on twitter to do your marketing for you studios.

For specific movies:

American Hustle: The main FBI agent is completely idiotic, instantly trusting two professional con-artists that he was obviously originally smart enough to catch doing con things. The movie constantly tries to point out who you should be rooting for even though everyone in it is an unlikable selfish dick. By the time I saw the big twist at the end I was just thinking 'yeah, a thing happened, wheeeee'.

and

The Conjuring: A decent if stock horror ruined by the fact that it portrays it's main characters as talented supernatural investigators when in real life those two people were assholes who conned people into believing they had ghosts.

 

[Zen Bard]

Anything directed by J.J. Abrams.

...and written by Orci, Lindloff and Kurtzman.

I know there are plenty of other truly intellectually insulting films, but "Star Trek:Into Darkness" just jumps out at me.

Credibility was strained to the breaking point within the first few minutes of the movie.

If you want to hide a STARSHIP...a vehicle specifically designed for space travel...from an indigenous population that has yet to invent the telescope, wouldn't it be smarter to just park it IN ORBIT than hide it underwater?

The movie is just filled with stupid shit like that.

Just more proof that Abrams and his team are allergic to logic and don't get science fiction.

It's not shown because it isn't important. On top of that, the moment passes quite quickly.

If it isn't important...why do it? Other than just to say "Ain't it cooooool to see the Enterprise rising from the sea?" nudge nudge wink wink.

This is just an example of the type of lapses of logic that add nothing but a forced "Gee whiz" factor to the movie. And as the subject of this thread is "Intellectually Insulting Movies", I found it insulting.

I found it insulting that the Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman team liberally dosed the movie with these little shiny objects to distract the audience from the poor writing.

A far more egregious example from that film is Kahn's magic blood that can apparently bring things back to life which is both stupid and central to the plot.

Actually, I could buy the idea that rapid repair capabilities of Khan's blood could be synthesized as a healing agent.

I think a far more egregious example is when Current Spock literally calls Alternate Future Spock just so Nimoy can deliver expository dialogue and explain to Quinto (and the audience) just who Khan is and why we should care. That's just lazy.

Not only that, but since their discussion happens on the main view screen on the bridge, why isn't the rest of the crew freaked out there are now suddenly two Spocks?

I though the conspiracy/mystery portion of the film worked quite well, that the film was on point thematically, and that the character interactions were fantastic.

I respect your opinion, but respectfully disagree.

 

[Warachia]

Credibility was strained to the breaking point within the first few minutes of the movie.

If you want to hide a STARSHIP...a vehicle specifically designed for space travel...from an indigenous population that has yet to invent the telescope, wouldn't it be smarter to just park it IN ORBIT than hide it underwater?

Not really, because that would make it far more likely the natives would see the one of the stars at night moving.
If it's a remote location that they know the natives won't go to, then it would be safer and make it far less likely they'll be seen, and far less likely to have any impact.

the only reason it doesn't happen like that is because Kirk screwed everything up.

I think a far more egregious example is when Current Spock literally calls Alternate Future Spock just so Nimoy can deliver expository dialogue and explain to Quinto (and the audience) just who Khan is and why we should care. That's just lazy.

Not only that, but since their discussion happens on the main view screen on the bridge, why isn't the rest of the crew freaked out there are now suddenly two Spocks?

I've seen a lot of people say this, so did I watch a different movie than everyone else? Because all future Spock says is that the blackmailing mass-murdering terrorist is evil and ruthless. Thanks Spock, I kind of figured that out when he blackmailed a man into blowing himself and hundreds of people up because he wanted revenge for something he only thought happened.

He does not explain who he is, he does not explain why we should care, he isn't there just to say that Khan is evil, it's just a pointless cameo, because you could remove it entirely and the movie would be no different.

Also what would the crew say about the second Spock? "Wow! They have the same name! So despite them being hundreds of years apart in age they must be the same person!" That conclusion is more ridiculous than anything else in the movie, how could they possibly know?

 

[Evonisia]

Any film were religious figures, or religious believers are extremely powerful, if they're in the same film as non-believers or people of a different faith. The big scary monster, the vampire or the werewolf can only be killed by the power of God, yes? Ugh...

Plus it's almost always an Abrahamic religion, I feel bad for the Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, crazy cult #67 who will just have to die because their God(s) or lack thereof won't be able to save them.

 

[Eddie the head]

Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed:
Anti-science film by an evolution denier, who LIED to those he interview AND edited said interviews to push his bullshit.
THEN has the audacity to claim's a documentary.

Oh shit I forgot about that movie. Yeah it needs to be here. Just awful.

 

[Zen Bard]

Credibility was strained to the breaking point within the first few minutes of the movie.

If you want to hide a STARSHIP...a vehicle specifically designed for space travel...from an indigenous population that has yet to invent the telescope, wouldn't it be smarter to just park it IN ORBIT than hide it underwater?

Not really, because that would make it far more likely the natives would see the one of the stars at night moving.
If it's a remote location that they know the natives won't go to, then it would be safer and make it far less likely they'll be seen, and far less likely to have any impact.

One can't see an object in orbit with the naked eye. Can you see the thousands of communication satellites or dozens of space stations around the Earth from the ground?

Yes, the Enterprise is bigger. But it's roughly twice the size of an aircraft carrier (about 600m) while a typical geosynchronous orbit is around 30,000km - 40,000km.

Seems to me if you want to keep a space ship out of sight, you keep it in space.

I've seen a lot of people say this, so did I watch a different movie than everyone else?

He does not explain who he is, he does not explain why we should care, he isn't there just to say that Khan is evil, it's just a pointless cameo, because you could remove it entirely and the movie would be no different.

Okay, I watched the scene again and your point's validit. You're right. Spock Prime doesn't give the history of Khan. But he does does give out some pertinent information (such as Khan's full name and the fact that he's NOT just your average terrorist).

And it can be assumed from the dramatic music before the cutaway, he answers Spock's question of "How did you defeat him?".

Also what would the crew say about the second Spock? "Wow! They have the same name! So despite them being hundreds of years apart in age they must be the same person!" That conclusion is more ridiculous than anything else in the movie, how could they possibly know?

"Wow! They have the same name, look incredibly alike and the Old One said something to the Young One about not giving information that could alter his destiny." I would think that would raise a few red flags in anyone with half a brain.

The scene might have had a little more credibility with me if Spock at least took the call in private.

But again, it's just another example of introducing some flashy gimmick in place of solid writing.

I think it would have been much more interesting (and far more in line with his character) if Spock did the detective work and discovered the truth about Khan on his own.

 

[Warachia]

Credibility was strained to the breaking point within the first few minutes of the movie.

If you want to hide a STARSHIP...a vehicle specifically designed for space travel...from an indigenous population that has yet to invent the telescope, wouldn't it be smarter to just park it IN ORBIT than hide it underwater?

Not really, because that would make it far more likely the natives would see the one of the stars at night moving.
If it's a remote location that they know the natives won't go to, then it would be safer and make it far less likely they'll be seen, and far less likely to have any impact.

One can't see an object in orbit with the naked eye. Can you see the thousands of communication satellites or dozens of space stations around the Earth from the ground?

YES. Yes you can, you can see them because the sun reflects off of them making them look like stars: http://www.spaceanswers.com/astronomy/how-many-manmade-satellites-can-you-see-with-the-naked-eye/

Surprisingly there are a large portion of manmade satellites that can be seen with the naked eye. Sightings can number up to a hundred in a single night if you have good viewing conditions.

To identify a satellite you are looking for a star that looks like it is slowly moving across the night sky. On average they are visible for several minutes although some can be present for longer. The important thing to note is that unlike a plane, most satellites do not 'blink' or flash (unless they reflect the light of the Sun directly towards Earth, such as an Iridium flare). They remain a steady brightness and follow consistent speed and direction across the sky. Occasionally they can disappear if they move into Earth?s shadow. So next time you find yourself away from a city in a dark rural area, study the sky for these slow moving objects and see how many you can spot.

I also said that earlier because I've seen satellites while on camping trips, like I said, they're easy to spot, they look like stars that are moving.

Yes, the Enterprise is bigger. But it's roughly twice the size of an aircraft carrier (about 600m) while a typical geosynchronous orbit is around 30,000km - 40,000km.

Seems to me if you want to keep a space ship out of sight, you keep it in space.

That still makes it several times larger than the satellites you can see unaided right now.

Also what would the crew say about the second Spock? "Wow! They have the same name! So despite them being hundreds of years apart in age they must be the same person!" That conclusion is more ridiculous than anything else in the movie, how could they possibly know?

"Wow! They have the same name, look incredibly alike and the Old One said something to the Young One about not giving information that could alter his destiny." I would think that would raise a few red flags in anyone with half a brain.

Look incredibly alike? This might be me but I don't think they look anything alike, at most you could claim that old Spock is his uncle, and information that could alter his destiny is easily written off as "Vulcan Stuff", I doubt any of the crew listening would even bother trying to understand, let alone come to the conclusion of time travel on the spot when they never knew such a thing was possible.

The scene might have had a little more credibility with me if Spock at least took the call in private.

Well I can agree here, personally I would have not kept it in the movie.

 

[Zen Bard]

YES. Yes you can, you can see them because the sun reflects off of them making them look like stars: http://www.spaceanswers.com/astronomy/how-many-manmade-satellites-can-you-see-with-the-naked-eye/

Surprisingly there are a large portion of manmade satellites that can be seen with the naked eye. Sightings can number up to a hundred in a single night if you have good viewing conditions.

To identify a satellite you are looking for a star that looks like it is slowly moving across the night sky. On average they are visible for several minutes although some can be present for longer. The important thing to note is that unlike a plane, most satellites do not 'blink' or flash (unless they reflect the light of the Sun directly towards Earth, such as an Iridium flare). They remain a steady brightness and follow consistent speed and direction across the sky. Occasionally they can disappear if they move into Earth?s shadow. So next time you find yourself away from a city in a dark rural area, study the sky for these slow moving objects and see how many you can spot.

I also said that earlier because I've seen satellites while on camping trips, like I said, they're easy to spot, they look like stars that are moving.


That still makes it several times larger than the satellites you can see unaided right now.

Perhaps. I've been in the desert on plenty a clear night and have NOT seen any satellites unaided. But I suppose it depends on where you are, what you're looking at and how far out the satellite is.

Either way "Moving star" would still be far less conspicuous that "Giant startship rising out of the sea." And regardless of whether or not Kirk screwed it up, the Enterprise would have to surface sometime. The noise alone would have probably attracted someone's attention.

Look incredibly alike? This might be me but I don't think they look anything alike, at most you could claim that old Spock is his uncle, and information that could alter his destiny is easily written off as "Vulcan Stuff", I doubt any of the crew listening would even bother trying to understand, let alone come to the conclusion of time travel on the spot when they never knew such a thing was possible.

Well they clearly look something alike or else Zachary Quinto wouldn't have been cast as Spock.

If you want to justify the scene, fine. It didn't work for me. And again, it just demonstrates lazy writing.

Well I can agree here, personally I would have not kept it in the movie.

Agreed!

 

[Warachia]

Perhaps. I've been in the desert on plenty a clear night and have NOT seen any satellites unaided. But I suppose it depends on where you are, what you're looking at and how far out the satellite is.

Either way "Moving star" would still be far less conspicuous that "Giant startship rising out of the sea." And regardless of whether or not Kirk screwed it up, the Enterprise would have to surface sometime. The noise alone would have probably attracted someone's attention.

Like I said, they look almost exactly like stars, if you want to see them, you should start watching at dusk, they'll usually be the first ones (star look-alikes) that you can see.

Consider how big a planet is, the amount of places you can see the ship rising of is less than the amount of places you can see something in orbit.

Personally I'd have parked the Enterprise way out in the middle of the ocean.

 

[jademunky]

All the people in this post are mentioning what they think are bad movies, but AVATAR is the ultimate example of a movie that completely insults the intelligence of the audience and yet get's praised as "deep" and "meaningful".

No. It's a stupid green aesop for 9 year olds. The characters are cartoonishly black and white good vs. evil. And the message of "evil westerners with their superior technology are bad guys and tribal peoples in touch with nature are noble" has been done to death in better films. Avatar is just visual SFX porn.

To be fair, I don't think all that many people were accusing Avatar of being deep and/or meaningful.

 

[lee1287]

Sex and the city two. i can't post videos cause' i'm a moron, but heres a link to a review by Kamode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeQeHstrsc