Thanks so much, Teague! That means a lot coming from you and your donation will keep the lights on and the dogs fed for a while!

BUMP - To note an update (4/15/15), made in the original post of this thread.

More so than even Bruckheimer, I'd say the guy truly responsible for that particular style (continued to the extreme by Michael Bay) would be Jerry's original producing partner, Don Simpson. Seriously, look that guy up. Everything about him screamed 80s' excess. Even into the 90s', before he died he couldn't let go of that aesthetic and lifestyle. Look at pictures of him and the guy is ever dressed as if he walked off the set of Top Gun.

As far as Tony Scott goes, I agree that it's unfair (and not altogether accurate) to write the man off as a commercial, lowest common denominator Director. On many occasions, he was more considered to be avant-garde. Just look at some of the stuff he was doing with text and editing in Man On Fire. Full disclosure, I didn't happen to like what he was doing but make no mistake, Tony Scott marched to the beat of his own drum and paved the way for what a lot of folks are doing now. One could argue as to that being either good or bad but like him or not, the man deserves respect.

The sad thing is, I don't have a problem with any of those movies. I think they each have something unique and worthwhile to offer. My stance has always been that George Lucas suffers from what I like to call Stephen Sommers Syndrome: The more money you give the guy, the worse the film ends up being. Convoluted, bloated, wall-to-wall CGI, misguided and self-indulgent.

Robert Rodriguez also suffers from this but in a different way. He likes to be cost effective but he's more like a contractor who's set out to build a house: "I'll just get rid of my expensive and time-consuming crew and just do everything myself! That way, I can put big, stone gargoyles EVERYWHERE and no one will be there to even suggest that's not a good idea! Screw film as a collaborative medium! It's all about MEEEE!!!"

So, yeah, the film may be under budget and even turned in early but the "fast, cheap and out of control" aspects are now negative markers that hurt the results of the finished product. Think of a kid in an arts and crafts class:
"I'm done!"
"Uh, you still have an hour left on time. I gave the class that amount of time for a reason."
"Yeah but I finished way early. See?"
"Hmmm. What is this? The assignment was to make a pirate ship. You failed to use all of the materials I gave you, you left out the crow's nest and are those rocket boosters on the bottom?"
"Yeah, isn't it awesome?"
"No, it's a pirate ship, I-- Okay, whatever. Points for imagination, I guess. What about the other kids in your group? Where are they in all this?
"Oh, I told them to go play."
"You--"
"Yeah, they were only slowing me down. What do I need them for when I can just do it all by myself?"
"IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A TEAM BUILDING EXERCISE!"

There are also filmmakers who make better producers and idea men, rather than Directors: McG, for example. His work in television (The OC, Chuck, Supernatural) is far more nuanced, interesting and creative than any of the films he's made. I think part of that is because he's forced to work within the boundaries of weekly, network television, so his decisions are more restrained while also more carefully considered. Working in a more long-form narrative is also helpful for people like him, since he's not trying to cram everything in the space of a feature film.

I think Sam Raimi had the right idea when he made Drag Me To Hell. Go back to your small-scale roots, to remind you why you started making movies in the first place. Look at Robert Zemeckis. He got away from the motion-capture cartoons he kept trying to force feed us and got back to his character-driven, human dramas with Flight.

They say the best way to critique a film is to make another one. The problem is, George Lucas just kept making more Star Wars or messing with the Star Wars that was already there. Not only was that not the work he'd started with, it was pre-existing material that could only allow him to go so far, creatively. What he needs to do is go back to the smaller, more micro-cosmic stories that challenged him as a creative storyteller, like American Graffiti.

However, the man is a billionaire at this point and therefore, doesn't actually need to do a damn thing for the rest of his life. Clearly, he wants for nothing. What stories does a guy like that have passion for, anymore?

That's been a thing way before Jupiter Ascending came along. It's called the "Hollywood System".

Seriously though, smart, original science fiction that doesn't have a name (in front of and/or behind the camera) that the audience recognizes and the market can bank on has always had general difficulty in getting made. Films like Moon and District 9 are anomalies. Exceptions that prove the rule. Jupiter Ascending failing at the box office won't have much impact in other sci-fi properties getting made and once it comes down to the bottom line, it doesn't even matter if the film was actually good or not. Sure, a studio might be resistant to spending that much money on something like this again but that's always been the case with such a risky genre and besides, the smaller-budgeted, independently produced route is typically where one goes to find more substantive, sci-fi cinema, anyway.

Consider this: Jupiter Ascending is a sci-fi spectacle that "didn't work". Okay but Guardians of the Galaxy is a sci-fi spectacle that "did work" and then some. I think as sci-fi fans, we'll be okay for a while. I mean, it's not as though films like Ex Machina are being pulled from release and buried, over Jupiter Ascending not making a mint at the box office. We at least still have that to look forward to.

BUMP - To note an update (2/8/15), made in the original post of this thread.

By the way, the robot in Lost In Space and the robot in Forbidden Planet are easy to mix up because they were designed and built by the same guy, who coincidentally JUST DIED last week, at 100 years old.

5 bucks is still 5 bucks we didn't have before, so every donation is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the kind words as well, everyone.

Is it still considered a gift if what it's giving is headaches?

Kind of? We're also dealing with the subjectivity of what qualifies to some as trivial and important to others.

You are correct. The Honest Trailers creators are of a group called Screen Junkies. I believe Cinema Sins is self-titled.

You misunderstood. Also, I didn't make a statement, I asked a question.

I think you're possibly overreacting but maybe that's just me.