For better or worse, I hold fast to the principle that all movies have the potential to be at least enjoyable. When I first heard about "Troll Hunter," I thought it sounded absolutely stupid, but then I saw it and loved it.
Even if these setups are played out and tired, and there's a good chance I'm going to despise the film, I find that I have to give it a chance.
Your "First World Problems" problem seems a little hypocritcal to me. "I hate it when people worse off than me point out that my problems are pretty insignificant compared to theirs... but fuck the really rich people for being embroiled in relatively insignificant problems!"
Usually, it's not people worse off pointing it out, though. Its usually people in practically the exact same situation (first world low-mid-upper middle class) pointing out that there are some hypothetical people in some foreign land (which they've never been to) that are worse off.
And for what? Mostly just to troll.
It seems to me it'd be an empty film for Sly or Arnold to return to either way because they can't fake their age. That picture of Arnold at the pool that's made the rounds showcases that he just can't muster the Mister Olympia physique anymore. That's life. So if we throw him in an action film based on that physique, the only ones it appeals to are the people that remember his early films. Teens may well not be familiar with them and just see another action film with a lackluster albeit humorous protagonist.
I don't know, I don't watch as many films as I used to. Perhaps that's why I liked Fast 5.
Dwayne Johnson has not had a spectacular run as an action star, and I'd say this is partially to do with the films and the scripts portraying him as a badass all while being a nice guy. Those two don't seem to mix. This is beside the point however: I think that if they got a badass beefcake with a personality, they could much more effectively recapture that 80's film glory. It might not be the top grossing movie, but it seems to me it'd have more appeal than these 2, or Red. Banking on the title will work for awhile, and with a stocked roster Red was guaranteed to break even, but I personally am not fond of these old people are action-heroes films. They seem almost like something your parents would watch on CBS.
I wish Medea and the Witness protection program wasn't the art for this, looking at it all week is testing =(. A friend of mine FORCED me to watch that stupid movie and I've never ever been so surprised by how bad a movie was in a cold sit down... so please go away and stop reminding me of that.
What about the following genres;
Serious buddy and Funny buddy are on a quest to fulfill whichever of these buddy's obsessions AKA every Pixar movies.
Average dude gets a super power. Struggle to balance his life between using it for good and his personal issues with his friends and family AKA every super hero movies.
Will Farrell AKA every Will Farrell movies.
Not that I mind any of these genre. Just that if you look for it, you can find annoying patterns in about everything.
Kind of a random thought here but recently I found myself watching "Predators", which is basically Predator 3 but without Arnold. Anyway I couldn't help but notice how, well, slim everyone was this time around, in comparison to the original two. Sometimes I miss that hammy, over-the-top warrior sort of film. That being said I did feel it was decently entertaining and worth a watch though.
"Seemingly Fabulous Upscale Career Woman Still Somehow Incomplete Without A Man"
This is the least likely to be abandoned because this kind of movie is so easy and always makes some amount of money from primarily female audience it's targeted to. Meg Ryan's career was built on that concept, and the money of annoyed boyfriends.
I can't stand any Romantic Comedy but I've learned to accept they will always have an audience. Probably harder for someone who sorta has to watch movies.
You know, they went over how bad for audiences RomComs really are on the latest episode of After Hours on Cracked.com. One of the ideas thrown around was that they imply women are incomplete without a man, no matter how successful they are careerwise.
For example: Bruce Wayne is rich as hell, and if his biggest problems really were his multibillion dollar company not turning a hefty enough profit (as opposed to the senseless murder of his family, obvious psychological issues and multiple evil organizations looking to punch his ticket), nobody would want to watch movies about him.
This is a good point and is actually why I'm generally bored by/avoid almost all-things Batman related. I know "the backstory" is only a small fragment and isn't really why anyone really watches/reads Batman.
That said, it's always bothered me that Batman is essentially about an incredibly rich kid who loses his parents and reacts by never growing up and acting out perpetual hero and revenge fantasies. Couldn't he, I dunno, help the city/police force with those funds? Perhaps invest more in the public well-being as opposed to his personal superspy gadgets and bat-themed concept vehicles?
There are two answers to that from two different perspectives. First, the real-world one, because that's the most obvious: That would be INCREDIBLY BORING TO WATCH AND READ! Well adjusted rich guy throws money at his hometown's problems and they're fixed for good? There's no story there!
Second, the in-universe one: there are just some kinds of criminals that the police and other conventional law enforcement agencies are unable to catch and (if whoever's writing it demands drama and upping the stakes) are basically cannon fodder, so Gotham City needs guys like Batman and his ilk to take them on. Seeing as how Gotham just attracts the criminally insane, the GCPD need all the help they can get.
A sports movie in which the great lesson of all is learned off of the field. And there is a disadvantaged player who needs the game to survive. Also, they are underdogs. Also let's tie it to an historic sports event. Blerg.
I'm kind of sick of underdog stories period.
Frankly, I'd like to see a story about the "big team." The one with all the sponsors and statistically are expected to win, but the crowds boo them and demand they lose. How could that work?
1) Don't make the underdog team out to be "loveable goofs." Instead make them arrogant pricks, but of course still have them be the fan favorite. The ones everyone wants to win because they're underdogs after all.
2) Explore what it would be like to be on the team everyone hates. What it is like to be the team where the only ones truly on your side are numbers and statistics. What it feels like to have the "pressure to lose" just so the crowd can have their underdog story on their shoulders.
If you need a real-life event to base this on, look no further then the New England Patriot's near perfect season. The one where they were 16-0, won their playoff games, and then lost the Super Bowl. Just like (nearly) everyone who I heard talk about it wanted it.
Something about what you said reminded me of MoneybAll, which featured the Oakland A's as the underdogs due to being underfunded, so General Manager Billy Beane set out to win games with MATH! and getting the most bangs for the few bucks he had. Good movie.