I'm skipping this one—changing the channel!

I guess I'm always curious, what is it about those opening shots that makes you just immediately flip the channel?

For me, it’s usually stuff like this—

- seeing actors in period costumes
- horses appearing on screen
- kids or teenagers hanging out at some high school
- a gritty urban ghetto
- aliens and massive spaceships
- maybe some indigenous people out in the wilderness while it's pouring rain
- or even just that classic shot of an American suburb with someone mowing their lawn

Nicholas Edwards4 said:I guess I'm always curious, what is it about those opening shots that makes you just immediately flip the channel?

For me, it’s usually stuff like this—

- seeing actors in period costumes
- horses appearing on screen
- kids or teenagers hanging out at some high school
- a gritty urban ghetto
- aliens and massive spaceships
- maybe some indigenous people out in the wilderness while it's pouring rain
- or even just that classic shot of an American suburb with someone mowing their lawn

man, you're missing out on some seriously great movies then... like Blue Velvet or District 9 or... having prejudices is a pretty bad habit.

I wouldn't call them prejudices, more like just being seasoned by experience, I guess.
A messy opening scene usually just sets the stage for an even worse movie down the line.
As for Blue Velvet, I watched that ages ago, back when it first came out... and honestly, it’s probably not sitting in my top tier of all time.

It honestly bugs me when you get bad B-movie production paired with even worse acting, directing, or writing. Or just those uninspired remakes... when all that comes together, it’s the exact kind of movie I have zero interest in watching, so I usually just pass... most modern Hollywood horror flicks, rom-coms, Steven Seagal movies, and stuff like that are prime examples... yeah, I pretty much change the channel the second I see Leslie Nielsen on screen.

Yeah, I basically change the channel the second I spot Leslie Nielsen on my screen...

For me, it’s more like Ben Affleck and that guy who’s been battling cancer forever, Patrick Swayze, who just kind of ruin the vibe for me, I guess.

benifer, yeah, him too... I just can't bring myself to watch Gigli...

It really all comes down to the soundtrack and how they set the mood in the opening act—I guess if you get some solid jazz, it’s usually a sign you're in for a decent movie.
Or maybe it's just some heavy techno beat.

It’s pretty rare... I don't usually give everything a shot...

rustyscout34 said:It honestly bugs me when you get bad B-movie production paired with even worse acting, directing, or writing. Or just those uninspired remakes... when all that comes together, it’s the exact kind of movie I have zero interest in watching, so I usually just pass... most modern Hollywood horror flicks, rom-coms, Steven Seagal movies, and stuff like that are prime examples... yeah, I pretty much change the channel the second I see Leslie Nielsen on screen.

👍
I'm with you on this

plus, I've never really been a fan of Jean-Claude van Damme or Dolph Lundgren

I tend to be pretty skeptical about war movies or anything involving terrorism themes—though I do make exceptions here and there🤷

Before I even sit down to watch a movie, I make sure I already know the premise and the production credits; if I don't, I won't waste a single minute of my time on it.

If I happen to stumble upon a film and it turns out to be some horror flick, a kids' movie, a family drama, an Agatha Christie mystery, or something involving a serial killer, high-octane action, or a Danielle Steel adaptation, I’m switching it off immediately. Once I have internet access, I usually find myself running back to my computer to look up the details just to decide whether or not the film is worth the effort. If I'm ever in doubt about whether to stick with it, I typically rate the uncertainty as a 6 out of 10—for instance, something like Debt Collector with Pierce Brosnan or King with Stephen King adaptations—and occasionally a 7 out of 10.

Anthony Smith3 said:It’s pretty rare... I don't usually give everything a shot...

My husband is exactly the same way, and I’m honestly just sitting here waiting for the moment he finally realizes he's watching absolute garbage. 😁

There's even this one specific subgenre that he won't even touch—you know, those cheesy American movies with baseball players and cheerleaders.

Matthew Williams42 said:👍
I'm with you on this

plus, I've never really been a fan of Jean-Claude van Damme or Dolph Lundgren

I tend to be pretty skeptical about war movies or anything involving terrorism themes—though I do make exceptions here and there🤷

It’s exactly because of those biases that I think tons of people missed out on "JCVD". It was easily one of the best films of 2008... and honestly, one of the best in his whole career. In my opinion, it stands out from the usual stuff other 80s and 90s action stars were churning out.

Anthony Smith3 said:It’s exactly because of those biases that I think tons of people missed out on "JCVD". It was easily one of the best films of 2008... and honestly, one of the best in his whole career. In my opinion, it stands out from the usual stuff other 80s and 90s action stars were churning out.

I think you're exaggerating a bit... sure, the movie is good, but calling it one of the best of 2008 seems like a stretch.
Either you're a fan of Jean-Claude van Damme, or simply the mere fact that he's attempting an action role inflates your rating, causing you to overlook the film's actual flaws.

...though, generally speaking, it remains one of the superior entries in his filmography, which, in my estimation, doesn't deviate significantly from the typical body of work produced by other action heroes of the 80s and 90s...

It does differ from Sylvester Stallone.

Nicholas Edwards4 said:My husband is exactly the same way, and I’m honestly just sitting here waiting for the moment he finally realizes he's watching absolute garbage. 😁

There's even this one specific subgenre that he won't even touch—you know, those cheesy American movies with baseball players and cheerleaders.

Nothing is trash until I say it's trash. Honestly... I hate prejudice... whatever form it takes. Nothing bugs me more than people writing off movies before seeing them just because they don't like a certain actor, director, or genre.
Respect your own tastes (even if saying that feels like a tired excuse at this point), but sometimes taste has zero to do with how good a movie actually is...

I always say you don't watch all movies for the same reasons. You don't watch a classic the same way you watch some B-movie... and honestly, some of those B-movies are surprisingly decent. Take last year, for example: "Felon," a direct-to-video B-movie starring a beefier Val Kilmer and a slightly forgotten Stephen Dorff... it was one of my favorite surprises from last year. And there are plenty of gems like that out there.

Anthony Smith3 said:It’s exactly because of those biases that I think tons of people missed out on "JCVD". It was easily one of the best films of 2008... and honestly, one of the best in his whole career. In my opinion, it stands out from the usual stuff other 80s and 90s action stars were churning out.

Personally, I don't mind Jean-Claude van Damme either way. I've seen maybe ten of his movies and they're fine for killing time with a beer, I suppose. > has been on my list for a long time, and everyone seems to praise it, though I doubt it's actually among the best of '08... 👍

Nothing is garbage until I decide it’s garbage, honestly... I just can't stand prejudices, whatever kind they may be.

I guess the first sign that a movie is going nowhere is when you don't see a single recognizable face on the poster.
And honestly, the second thing is that as soon as I spot some busted-up cars or cheap-looking clothes—unless we're talking about some legendary cinematic classic—I'm probably just going to change the channel.

goldenhound32 said:I think you're exaggerating a bit... sure, the movie is good, but calling it one of the best of 2008 seems like a stretch.
Either you're a fan of Jean-Claude van Damme, or simply the mere fact that he's attempting an action role inflates your rating, causing you to overlook the film's actual flaws.

...though, generally speaking, it remains one of the superior entries in his filmography, which, in my estimation, doesn't deviate significantly from the typical body of work produced by other action heroes of the 80s and 90s...

It does differ from Sylvester Stallone.

I'm not exaggerating. You always have to nitpick some tiny detail in every movie that nobody even notices—like how you did with Wrestler, asking "how could a woman get backstage". Do some actual reading online... then tell me if I'm overreacting.

BTW...JCVD isn't an action star at all... check facts.😉

Exactly... Sylvester Stallone shot the same kind of crap throughout his career as Jean-Claude van Damme did... high-octane action for the masses... Judge Dredd, The Specialist, Cobra, Assassins, Demolition Man, etc. A lot of those movies actually turn people off today (maybe rightfully so), but he got lucky because he also did Rocky, Rambo, Cliffhanger, and Cop Land, which earned him that level of respect.
Same goes for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Luckily, he had Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator, Predator, Total Recall, and True Lies, which became cult classics... but he also churned out plenty of mindless action like Conan the Destroyer, Raw Deal, Red Sonja, Eraser... and even Commando, though that one hit cult status mostly due to its cheesy vibe. But looking at the big picture... they all (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude van Damme, Steven Seagal... even Bruce Willis to an extent) spent their careers making the same thing—big, loud action. Some just got luckier with a few higher-quality flicks in the genre.

Anthony Smith3 said:Nothing is trash until I say it's trash. Honestly... I hate prejudice... whatever form it takes. Nothing bugs me more than people writing off movies before seeing them just because they don't like a certain actor, director, or genre.
Respect your own tastes (even if saying that feels like a tired excuse at this point), but sometimes taste has zero to do with how good a movie actually is...

I always say you don't watch all movies for the same reasons. You don't watch a classic the same way you watch some B-movie... and honestly, some of those B-movies are surprisingly decent. Take last year, for example: "Felon," a direct-to-video B-movie starring a beefier Val Kilmer and a slightly forgotten Stephen Dorff... it was one of my favorite surprises from last year. And there are plenty of gems like that out there.

Felon isn't a B-movie.

Anthony Smith3 said:I'm not exaggerating. You always have to nitpick some tiny detail in every movie that nobody even notices—like how you did with Wrestler, asking "how could a woman get backstage". Do some actual reading online... then tell me if I'm overreacting.

BTW...JCVD isn't an action star at all... check facts.😉

Exactly... Sylvester Stallone shot the same kind of crap throughout his career as Jean-Claude van Damme did... high-octane action for the masses... Judge Dredd, The Specialist, Cobra, Assassins, Demolition Man, etc. A lot of those movies actually turn people off today (maybe rightfully so), but he got lucky because he also did Rocky, Rambo, Cliffhanger, and Cop Land, which earned him that level of respect.
Same goes for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Luckily, he had Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator, Predator, Total Recall, and True Lies, which became cult classics... but he also churned out plenty of mindless action like Conan the Destroyer, Raw Deal, Red Sonja, Eraser... and even Commando, though that one hit cult status mostly due to its cheesy vibe. But looking at the big picture... they all (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude van Damme, Steven Seagal... even Bruce Willis to an extent) spent their careers making the same thing—big, loud action. Some just got luckier with a few higher-quality flicks in the genre.

Heh... I merely stated that Jean-Claude Van Damme has flaws; I didn't explicitly state my conclusion, yet you somehow jumped to the assumption that I was just being pedantic. It isn't. We are discussing a monologue.

Do a little reading online... then you can decide for yourself if I'm overreacting.

If I hadn't done my research online, I wouldn't have even bothered watching it.🙂

By the way... Jean-Claude Van Damme isn't an action star at all... check it.😉

It appears someone hasn't been reading my posts very carefully.

But when you look at the big picture... all of them (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal... even Bruce Willis to an extent) have spent their careers churning out the same kind of movies—big, loud action flicks. Some were just luckier than others to land a few higher-quality projects within that genre.

My point is simply this: Stallone's crap is better than Van Damme's crap. That's all I'm saying. It's the same genre, but the quality differs.

Anthony Smith3 said:It’s pretty rare... I don't usually give everything a shot...

I find myself in the exact same position. There are many times when I feel a sense of regret, and truthfully, in most instances, I realize from the very beginning that I have made a mistake. Still, I cannot help it; I have this compulsion to see through everything I start.