What movie did you love when you were younger but got progressivly worse over time?

Submitted by Steakhouse42 t3_yih9vw in movies

Heres a few of mine.

Pulp fiction. Yes i went thru this phase just like any other person. But as ive gotten older it just doesnt hold up. Iconic quotes it has. But as a film, to me, its just fine.

Fight Club. I thought this was the coolest thing ever. But now that I'm older i see fight club how its supposed to be. A satire. And it went from this cool film to a comedy to me. Its just so ridiculous now.

The winter soldier. This film just doesnt hold up. The concept of winter solders in itself is dumb. Why do all that when you could just raise extremist. LIKE THEY DID WITH WANDA. .

Most spielberg films. I know this is sacrilige. But as i had a phase where id just watch tons of 50s and 60s movies. And i realize that spielberg basicly just made high budget versions of those movies. Jurrasic park, ET, and indy all have b movie counterparts. Now im not saying he sucks. But ive realized hes not really the maverick i thought he was. He was basicly just a fanboy who was in position.

The first 2 films in the lotr trilogy. Again another hot take. But last month i rewatched the entire lotr series including the hobbit and i saw the animated films. And i gotta say. Those first two were mediorce af. And ironicly as a kid two towers was my favorite movie. But now im older what even was Fellowship. It felt like an episode of Xena. Now ROTK is still the greatest ending to a film series ive ever seen. But man those 1st two werent as good as i remember. Also look at gandalfs beard in fellowship. Its horribly blended in to ian face. It was distracting.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheCheshireCody t1_iuiuvr8 wrote

"Spielberg just makes high-budget B-Movies"

You come off as just someone reaching to be edgy. Like, reaching so hard it's as if you think you'll get a prize. Close Encounters and E.T. aren't movies about aliens. Jurassic Park isn't about dinosaurs. Jaws isn't about a shark. All of these, and his other films, are about human reactions to various circumstances. Spielberg's biggest hits tend to be Sci-Fi oriented or have trappings of Sci-Fi, but that's just the frame on which he hangs his stories because it's something he enjoys.

Re: Fight Club: just because you completely missed what are staggeringly obvious themes in the movie doesn't mean it lost its power as a film. And when I say "staggeringly obvious" I mean my eleven-year-old son got them on his first watch. You just thought you were getting something out of it that wasn't there because you were looking for something that wasn't there and blind to what the movie was really saying. You were a Space Monkey. Also, satire =/= comedy and if you think FC is a comedy then holy shit you're still missing the point.

The rest of it I'm just gonna shake my head at and walk away.

14

Steakhouse42 OP t1_iuiw1zf wrote

  1. Yes they are. Its WHY the second jurrasic park film is called the Lost World . The lost world was a B movie from the turn of the century. Lol.

  2. Youre fight club point is literally my point.

−4

Astrosaurus42 t1_iuj5opm wrote

> Its WHY the second jurrasic park film is called the Lost World

It was called "The Lost World" because the second book was called "The Lost World"

9

No-Tune-868 t1_iuiyqdc wrote

Agreeing with OP here. He grew up and im not sure i can say the same for u. The personal attacks and fanboying movies like fight club that are made for teenagers who want to be edgy.

−4

Bomber131313 t1_iujeruq wrote

> The personal attacks and fanboying movies like fight club that are made for teenagers who want to be edgy.

You don't need to be a fan boy to understand Fight Club wasn't made for teenagers. The reason teens like it is because most miss the as OP said the "staggeringly obvious" satire of the film.

1

Asha_Brea t1_iuintyp wrote

>The winter soldier. This film just doesnt hold up. The concept of winter solders in itself is dumb. Why do all that when you could just raise extremist. LIKE THEY DID WITH WANDA.

Why there are so few Super Soldier other than Steve Rogers?

Why does Tony Stark doesn't give Iron Man suits to all the avengers?

Or just have Jarvis defeating everyone?

Why no one calls the rest of the Avengers in the solo movies?

Why do people pretend that Hawkeye is not useful but give a pass to Black Widow?

Why does Black Widow uses that super different haircut in the movie?

​

​

Because it is a comic book movie.

11

Steakhouse42 OP t1_iuipj73 wrote

Its because rogers genetics are actually unique. Most peoples bodies cant handle the stress and they die. This is why him and isiah bradley are the only people who were successful with the og serum.

Each ironman suit is several hundred thousand to over a billion dollars. Thats why. Also not all jobs the avengers do require an ironman suit. Why the heck would black widow use an ironman suit when her job is to be discreet. Remember each avenger actually has a different job. Hawkeye is a sniper. Thor is a warrior. Captain america and black panther are essentially navy seals. Tony works with the fbi. So they all dont actually need iron man suits.

Jarvis that advanced. Hes just an opperating system.

Why would you call the avengers for every calamity on earth. Does SWAT team in atlanta call in seal team six for a hostage situation. NO. people have to remember that the Avengers are LITERALLY a special forces branch of the US government. They are funded in a joint coalition between tony stark and the department of defense. Which is why the sokovia accords were launched so they could be fully controlled.

But i agree. It is a comic book movie. 😂

−8

Asha_Brea t1_iuiqy2r wrote

>Its because rogers genetics are actually unique. Most peoples bodies cant handle the stress and they die. This is why him and isiah bradley are the only people who were successful with the og serum.

So, you agree that making super soldiers is not something that easy. Even Pietro and Wanda are the only survivors over several test subjects.

And the experiment only work because Hydra at the time was in control of the mind stone.

>Each ironman suit is several hundred thousand to over a billion dollars

This means nothing for Tony Stark.

>Also not all jobs the avengers do require an ironman suit.

If they are fighting an alien army, Black Widow would be more useful with an Iron Man suit, and so would Captain America and Hawkeye.

>Why the heck would black widow use an ironman suit when her job is to be discreet.

Her Job is not being discrete when fighting a war.

>Remember each avenger actually has a different job. Hawkeye is a sniper.

You know what is actually a better sniper than a guy with a bow and arrows? A machine that can't miss and a next generation sniper rifle.

>Captain america and black panther are essentially navy seals.

Black Panther has his own fully functional bulletproof suit.

>Jarvis that advanced. Hes just an opperating system.

Have you seen Iron Man 3? Jarvis can very easily control several Iron Man suits at the same time.

>Why would you call the avengers for every calamity on earth.

So you think that Steve Rogers, knowing what Hydra is planning to do with the hellcarriers, should trust a random guy that he met on the street over Tony Stark, who designed the propulsion system for the hellcarriers and can probably disable them via remote control? That makes sense to you?

Thor and Hulk would turn the three hellcarriers into garbage pretty quickly, too.

>people have to remember that the Avengers are LITERALLY a special forces branch of the US government.

They are not.

>They are funded in a joint coalition between tony stark and the department of defense.

This is not true. Tony Stark pays for everything.

>Which is why the sokovia accords were launched so they could be fully controlled.

The Sokovia Accords were launched BECAUSE no one ruled over the Avengers.

5

Steakhouse42 OP t1_iuith9p wrote

You didnt really disprove any of my points, but ill respond.

  1. Yes. In fact in the comics bucky isnt a supersoldier. They actually buffed him in the mcu. But why even use bucky.

  2. Tony doesnt have infinite money lol. His money is tied up in his busineses and he bankrolls the operation. Many billionaores dont actually have 50billion liquid. His actual cash would be way lower. But also most of the avengers dont actually need ironman suits. Except black widow and hawkeye. Even starlord is superhumanly strong.

  3. Black panther is STILL the equivalent of a navy seal. He mostly does stealth missions and infiltration. Do you realize that if him and captain america were real you'd literally never see them. They arent really patrolling superheroes like a spiderman or daredevil.

  4. The Avengers work with the National Security council. Did you watch the first avengers. Lol. What do you think the avengers do. They dont patrol newyork. They deploy around the world when ever there is a major superpowered threat. With the support of the US military. This is why mysterio says "this is an avengers level threat" every single avenger is special forces military bro.

Captain america - US special forces

Falcon- para recuse

Rhodey- secetary of defense

Black widow- flipped Russian spy

Black panther- head of wakandan special forces. And head of state.

Thor- prince of Asgard. Asgard greatest weapon. Head of the warriors three. The most elite military commanders in Asgard.

The hulk- military scientist. Walking nuclear bomb.

Hawkeye- US special forces sniper.

Wanda- converted terrorist.

Dr.strange- sorcerer supreme. Commands an army of the worlds most elite wizards.

The entire antman team are military scientist.

The avengers are LITERALLY a superpowerd strike team of elite special forces members.

−5

Bomber131313 t1_iuk4kzp wrote

> The Avengers work with the National Security council.

What would make you think that?

>With the support of the US military.

What would make you think that?

This clip from Civil War establishs the Averagers as a private no military group. Literally Ross uses the world vigilantes and said "for the past 4 years you have operated with unlimited power and no supervision. That's an arrangement the governments of the world can no longer tolerate." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpXcU6DvRVA&t=98s That Ross part is around the 2:25 mark.

The Avengers have no connection the government or US military.

5

Asha_Brea t1_iuiuejp wrote

>Yes. In fact in the comics bucky isnt a supersoldier. They actually buffed him in the mcu. But why even use bucky.

Hydra already has control over the Winter Soldier. Why create anything else if Bucky works?

>Tony doesnt have infinite money lol. His money is tied up in his busineses and he bankrolls the operation. Many billionaores dont actually have 50billion liquid. His actual cash would be way lower. But also most of the avengers dont actually need ironman suits. Except black widow and hawkeye. Even starlord is superhumanly strong.

At no moment in any of the movies Tony Stark had a money problem. He even gave Peter Parker the suit for free in Civil War.

But he has Black Widow, a human that can't dodge bullets, nothing.

>Black panther is STILL the equivalent of a navy seal. He mostly does stealth missions and infiltration. Do you realize that if him and captain america were real you'd literally never see them. They arent really patrolling superheroes like a spiderman or daredevil.

Black Panther has his own bulletproof fully functional suit. Captain America can very easily have a similar suit. And so could Black Widow and Hawkeye, making them more durable and making them cause more damage.

>The Avengers work with the National Security council. Did you watch the first avengers. Lol. What do you think the avengers do. They dont patrol newyork. They deploy around the world when ever there is a major superpowered threat. With the support of the US military. This is why mysterio says "this is an avengers level threat" every single avenger is special forces military bro.
>
>Captain america - US special forces
>
>Falcon- para recuse
>
>Rhodey- secetary of defense
>
>Black widow- flipped Russian spy
>
>Black panther- head of wakandan special forces. And head of state.
>
>Thor- prince of Asgard. Asgard greatest weapon. Head of the warriors three. The most elite military commanders in Asgard.
>
>The hulk- military scientist. Walking nuclear bomb.
>
>Hawkeye- US special forces sniper.
>
>Wanda- converted terrorist.
>
>Dr.strange- sorcerer supreme. Commands an army of the worlds most elite wizards.
>
>The entire antman team are military scientist.
>
>The avengers are LITERALLY a superpowerd strike team of elite special forces members.

None of this is accurate at all, bro.

If you think that the Avengers show up because they are called by a goverment, then you need to watch Civil War again.

2

Steakhouse42 OP t1_iuivopv wrote

"nOnE oF THiS iS AcCuRate"

Yes it is. Civil war was about the government taking away the avengers decisions on which missions to take.

−1

Asha_Brea t1_iuiw2ma wrote

Civil War is about the goverment WANTING to take away the avenger decisions and a group of Avengers saying "Jajajaja no".

4

Steakhouse42 OP t1_iuiw83t wrote

Only half the avengers agreed.

−2

Asha_Brea t1_iuix4dx wrote

Not true. Iron Man team (the one that is in favor of the accords) is composed of:

  • Tony Star (who goes against the accords in Civil War)
  • James Rhodes
  • Vision
  • Natasha Romanoff (who changed sides).
  • Peter Parker (who has no idea what is happening and is only there to impress Tony).
  • T'challa (who does not give a shit because he is going to do whatever he wants anyways).

​

So, only 2 Avengers actually agreed. And Rhodes regrets picking that side (as seen in Infinity War).

4

General_PoopyPants t1_iuk1cp9 wrote

> Each ironman suit is several hundred thousand to over a billion dollars

That's a pretty big gap

2

Easy-Specialist1821 t1_iuiqmt4 wrote

With comic book movies, unless you've been a comic book enthusiast (read a bunch of them) they lose lustre, a movie can almost never give you the backstory that reading can. Subsequently, if you'd read them it could be like you imagined or better or the joy of others knowing the stories too.

1

AdSpecialist5387 t1_iuiwgts wrote

>Fight Club. I thought this was the coolest thing ever. But now that I'm older i see fight club how its supposed to be. A satire. And it went from this cool film to a comedy to me.

It's confusing to me that as you grew up and recognized Fight Club had more maturity than just cool dudes punching, that somehow made the movie worse to you. I can understand it might not hold the same place in your heart but I think that complexity elevates it.

6

FreezingRobot t1_iuip7u5 wrote

I think a lot of folks, myself included, are going to say Boondock Saints. I thought it was cheesy fun when I was 20, but now its unwatchable.

5

Steakhouse42 OP t1_iuiq5jv wrote

Bro yes. I tried to rewatch it last year. The cringe was crazy.

3

BillyFatStax t1_iuin5tq wrote

Nah, it's just your taste is becoming dulled with age.

4

drogyn1701 t1_iuiqmhu wrote

I have fallen out of love with Sin City. When it came out I was obsessed with it, but I tried to rewatch it recently and the ultra-noire shtick wore thin very, very quickly.

I've also soured on Starship Troopers over time. I don't think it's half as clever as everyone else seems to think. I also read the book and the film is a pretty poor adaptation. (I still love the production design and the score though).

4

AdSpecialist5387 t1_iuizmma wrote

>I also read the book and the film is a pretty poor adaptation.

Interesting perspective on this, according to IMDB:

>Director Paul Verhoeven admits to have never finished the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both bored and depressed, calling it "a very right-wing book" in Empire magazine. He then told screenwriter Edward Neumeier to tell him the rest. Verhoeven and Neumeier then decided that while both the novel and its author Robert A. Heinlein strongly supported a regime led by a military elite, they would turn the concept around and satirize it, making the film a hyperbole of contemporary American politics and culture. Diehard Heinlein fans declare that the filmmakers have completely misinterpreted Heinlein's nature and intentions. They say he was a libertarian who opposed conscription and militarism. He depicted the oligarchy-by-ex-military-citizenry government in the book because it was an example of something that has never been done in real life. He was not advocating it, but was merely speculating that such a system could exist without collapsing.

1

Technical-Prompt4432 t1_iujyx8b wrote

The fact that the film version tries to mock the book has been repeated to death, but the point stands that the book is actually interesting with real ideas and cooler sci fi aspects (powered armor), whereas the movie is cheesy and dopey.

0

Olipipee t1_iujwh1d wrote

As a kid I thought the Bloodsport was the coolest martial arts film ever. I've rewatched it and it's still very entertaining.. but not quite as cool as I remember

3

Bruhmangoddman t1_iuk282u wrote

About Winter Soldier... He was captured by Soviets. They used coercion, brainwashing and intimidation to make you do their bidding. Germans are the ones that simply make you an extremist.

Wanda was approached by the Germans.

Do you see it now?

2

UntidyBargain t1_iuk4ca5 wrote

Don’t be too surprised when you come back around. I’ve found a lot of love for movies that went from “beloved” in my teens-20s to “irrelevant” in my 30s now that I’m in my 40s.

2

WhereIsThatElephant t1_iuk5a1d wrote

Death To Smoochy. First time it was quite mad and original. Second time I saw it as an adult it was just tired.

1

No-Tune-868 t1_iuizu26 wrote

Taste is just maturing. A lot of movies are made for 18-34. Hence a lot dont hold up when u get out of that age group. Same has happened to me. Im 43 now and havent watched a Spielberg movie in over a decade, have to steel myself to watch ever new Tarantino film and fight club is just some trendy bs i moved past a long time ago.

I used to love Scorsese but his stuff seems immature now too.

I dunno, give me Mizoguchi or some grown up directors… cant handle ‘cool’ movies anymore…

−4

Huevos___Rancheros t1_iuj2wyr wrote

This was the most pretentious shit I’ve ever read

11

No-Tune-868 t1_iuj33v6 wrote

Go read Marcel Proust then. Ull soon find there are far more pretentious ppl than me.

−1

TheRealProtozoid t1_iuk74jq wrote

Love that you countered the accusation that you are pretentious with recommending Proust. Take my upvote.

And you're not wrong. I do like some of Scorsese's films, though, but mostly his recent ones like Silence and The Irishman. Taxi Driver just seems profoundly mentally ill to me and I'm glad he grew as a person after that.

−2