|
Hedrigall posted:One of the few interesting parts is that in 1996 one of the ships actually landed, in like Uganda or something, and there has been a ground war going on with aliens from the ship for decades, but of course they don't show any of this, just some alien skulls on poles outside a warlord's camp. That was the one thing I actually liked about this turd. Before it goes full Emmerich, there's some interesting bits about the world having actually changed after the events of the first movie. Everything's been rebuilt, there's references to the the massive change in population demographics after all the deaths in the first one, and you've got a whole society that's developed psychic links with the aliens after years of ground warfare. That's all stuff I would have liked to have seen more of, and/or might have made for a fun TV show where it could be expanded out on. Instead we get Old Jew's Merry Schoolyard Adventures.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:What I don't understand is how the aliens had footage of Bill Pullman giving his speech from the first movie. It wasn't being filmed/televised.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
You couod probqbly explain it away with that psychic link stuff or whatever was going on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Femur posted:the whole sphere McMuffin never made much sense to me.. I understand the queen's obsession with it, fighting for 1000 years and all, but why did the sphere act like it it was the race that was enlightened and had superior tech. It admitted its race got wipe wiped out basically, and never manage to take even one harvester queen down. They sound like the inferior technological race to me, and probably ran and hid for a 100 years, space is pretty big. Also their messenger ship got 1-shotted by some tiny, lovely cargo cult gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Explanation for the footage thing: This movie is schlock and stupid as hell and is exactly the sequel ID4 deserved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Where the hell was the orb the first movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:Where the hell was the orb the first movie? The Orb wasn't aware of us until the alien ship blew up in the first movie. The same signal that the Bad Aliens heard, the Orb did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
The alien orb had a very unfortunate resemblance for me, this dude's head:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
The first movie had a lot of the same beats as the 1953 War of the Worlds: Initial friendly humans mercilessly killed, conventional military attack soundly defeated, nuke utilized to no effect, aliens defeated by a virus as they are poised for victory. The only things it's missing are the basement scene and a female lead who screams all the time. The new movie is a mess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Pierson posted:The alien orb had a very unfortunate resemblance for me, this dude's head: I think it was more supposed to evoke this:  Edit: also, I really thought the blinking lights on the front of the sphere ship were supposed to be evocative of the "Welcome Wagon" helicopter light rig from the original. jivjov fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jun 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
It was a very enjoyable movie, especially if you don't try to overanalyse the plot. All the haters should go gargle some peppermint chutney in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
THORIUM posted:And honestly, I'm going to end by harping on the fact that these are fairly obvious decisions to make with a sequel like this. This is one of the few movies where any college (or even high school) dropout could write a decent script and execute it well enough to be a lesser but solid follow-up to the greatest blockbuster of the 90's. I think a lot of people are being too hard on the flick, but I think this right here is being particularly unfair. Have we already taken the recent trends of serialization and franchise-world building in blockbuster films for granted? To the point that focusing on a ground war between guerillas with machetes vs. aliens in Africa is an "obvious" direction to take an Independence Day sequel? On the contrary, I've always considered Independence Day a particularly difficult movie to make a good sequel to, because I'd always presumed that any sequel would be mandated to preserve the central hook of the first Independence Day: what if you woke up one day and there was aliens in the skies? Reminder: this hook was so powerful that this was precisely how the trailer started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Dzpx_yTyo Now, of course it's impossible to do this again in a sequel (precisely why I always considered it a 'difficult' concept), but dagnabit if you aren't going to try because that was the whole point of Independence Day: your regular daily life getting upended by absurd sci-fi shenanigans. And for decades that's what a sequel was for: doing it again. It's why Die Hard 2 isn't a movie about the fallout of the political and personal fallout from the terrorist heist in the first film, it was the first Die Hard movie essentially happening again, only in an airport this time. It's why Home Alone 2 is a movie where Macaulay Culkin is left behind from his family on vacation and running into the same 2 burglars from the first movie again (only in New York this time). Mind you, it took THREE sequels and over twenty years to get to what in hindsight, in the current pop-culture climate, seems like the obvious direction to take Jurassic Park 2. Because letting a concept run to its natural conclusion was getting away from what initially brought people in. This isn't to say there isn't a lot of "doing it again" in Independence Day 2, it is essentially "the aliens invade again" and the plot structure is very comfortably within the typical Emmerich disaster film template. But I think the movie deserves a lot more credit than it's getting. Chucking the hook from the first movie really was a brave thing to do and results in a VERY different movie even if a lot of its pieces are the same. The new 'hook' is now an alternate history "what does that world look like NOW" curiosity satiating that certainly has an appeal of its own (I certainly enjoyed that they went there) but is risky for being untested and for going full-on sci-fi when part of the success of the original was that it was, for lack of a better term, down to earth. I may well just be overly cynical but I was genuinely surprised in a pleasantly way with how imaginative Independence Day 2 was. I don't think even ten years ago they would have made a movie with moon-bases, orbs emerging from wormholes, ground wars in Africa and just generally letting the world look different than our own. The movie's got issues for sure, but I think it's telling that one of them is that it seems to have too many neat ideas and doesn't seem to have room to let them run wild.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I think it was more supposed to evoke this: What about 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
I'd go see it again, I just hope there's a director's cut or something because my first impression was a lot of the scenes felt rushed and it didn't built up the same tension as the first one. I would have liked to have seen the 'July 3rd', 'July 4th' titles pop in just to break up the pacing a bit. I know movies do this a lot but that ending was the longest "we've only got x minutes left" I've ever seen
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing this, I dug it but it was really rushed and too short. Like, you could practically see where they were trimming scenes down to keep it at or under 120 minutes. And it wasn't just exposition or character scenes, it felt like a lot of the action scenes were getting pruned and it really took the wind out of their sails a lot of the time. I had a good time with it, but I'm a little disappointed; the pacing felt a little rushed to try and cram in everything, but at the same time there were some neat ideas I'd have liked to have seen more of. I think it would have helped with their "payoff" later on in the movie. As an aside I did read the prequel tie-in book 'Independence Day: Crucible' (it's me, I'm the turbonerd) so I can answer questions about that if anyone has any. In a nutshell: It starts right where the first movie ends, and ends right at the start of the new movie, so it actually spans 20 years. It gives a lot of backstory on Jake and Charlie, their childhood, growing up, and why Dylan doesn't like him and how Jake got stationed on the moon. It covers why certain characters aren't present in the sequel, and actually handles it surprisingly well. If the book does one thing well, it really nails the "voices" of the legacy characters like Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum, and it does it without feeling forced or like goofy caricatures or whatever. It talks about the creation of the Earth Space Defense, the settlement of the moon, diplomacy with different countries, etc. The whole thing with Umbutu gets covered in a lot of detail, but most of the focus is on the warlord leader's gradual descent into madness and how it drags his son down and basically ruins his life, leading right up to the events of the movie. On the whole it's kind of a neat book for turbonerds like me, and the movie itself does a good enough job hitting the bullet points so it's not like the book is "required reading" for the movie to make sense; the book just covers things in greater detail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
What about then ID4 is worth looking more into? Unless it's a sequel about how Randy Quaid went nuts and thought Rupert Murdoch was out to get him, I don't see the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:
The Infinite Tarmac from whichever recent F&F movie So was it ever mentioned that the queen HAD to be the one to come get the MacGuffin? I don't understand why the queen wouldn't just hang out in her spacetub and make the drones do the work. Making yourself vulnerable seems kinda silly. At least wait until Earth is fully chaos-dunked by your Plot Drill before exposing yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I'm also unnecessarily annoyed that we went from "David, you come play chess with me in the park 5 days a week, you need to get out more" all the way to "David and I only see each other for thanksgiving and we cancelled last year" between movies. I just took this as meaning to show that David was busy as gently caress since he was in charge of the entire Earth defense. quote:Basically, going to the Alamo's double feature was the worst way to watch the sequel, as it just makes it glaringly apparently where all the incongruities are. I think the writers for Resurgence were hoping that people only had vague, two decade old, memories of the original. Oh man, I bet! The original was like a masterpiece compared to this pile of manure. I don't think the writers were hoping people had distant memories of the first film... I think they themselves hadn't seen the original in two decades!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Desiden posted:there's references to the the massive change in population demographics after all the deaths in the first one I completely missed this. It might have been one of the four times I went to the restroom (I had a little girl bladder that night for some reason). Can you explain?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Why can't the alien harvester ship just scrape the entire surface of the Earth clean of all life (seriously, just drag that poo poo around the planet a few times), then drill to the core, and then up and be done with it? Oh wait, I'm using my brain to pick apart this movie, aren't I? Go away brain, me no like you ohhhh pretty explosion go BOOM!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
paperwind posted:Why can't the alien harvester ship just scrape the entire surface of the Earth clean of all life (seriously, just drag that poo poo around the planet a few times), then drill to the core, and then up and be done with it? I think they were just intended to be arrogant. Based on the scale of their civilisation the force from the first movie was their equivalent of a small logging crew. They were taken out so their Queen said gently caress it I'll do it myself assuming that humans couldn't do anything to stop them. Really, the one thing from the movie I still can't get past is the fact that a small time warlord was apparently able to stop an international force with all their advanced tech from coming to look at the single intact city destroyer ship on Earth for 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
paperwind posted:Why can't the alien harvester ship just scrape the entire surface of the Earth clean of all life (seriously, just drag that poo poo around the planet a few times), then drill to the core, and then up and be done with it? Not enough volcanoes inside it to power the space guns for that long. Pretty simple really!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:I think they were just intended to be arrogant. Based on the scale of their civilisation the force from the first movie was their equivalent of a small logging crew. They were taken out so their Queen said gently caress it I'll do it myself assuming that humans couldn't do anything to stop them. The prequel book mostly covers this by saying that the EDF didn't want to risk disrupting the unprecedented global international peace by invading Umbutu, and the small-time warlord kept making it clear that if his country got invaded, he'd turn it all into a big-time international clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
paperwind posted:Why can't the alien harvester ship just scrape the entire surface of the Earth clean of all life (seriously, just drag that poo poo around the planet a few times), then drill to the core, and then up and be done with it? I got the impression that their ship was so massive that there was nothing the humans could do to stop it so they didn't bother wasting time eliminating us. I mean, it wiped out the entire orbital defence system immediately
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Say what you want about this flick, but I had a good time watching it. Brent Spiner really saved it for me. "We've got alien guns!?" or "the Okun laser, I built this baby back in 94"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Maybe I wasn't paying attention but what was the point of the Queen's trap during the first assault? We see that the fighters and bombers were hopelessly outmatched and the alien shields can resist the fusion bombs anyway. Why lure them inside? Just wait a minute and your defense batteries would have destroyed them all anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
THORIUM posted:I completely missed this. It might have been one of the four times I went to the restroom (I had a little girl bladder that night for some reason). Can you explain? I may have been reading too much into it, but some of the discussion of two of the pilots being orphans as well as some of the other family background bits left me with the impression that demographically the world was a bit like the post WW2 Soviet Union. Big population skew due to the massive casualties and subsequent boom of post-war births, so a lot more young people in higher positions than might normally be expected. It seemed like a mildly clever way to explain hollywood casting in-universe, though that's probably giving the film too much credit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Kind of odd how they put so much attention on the idea of the one guy being the son of a hero but they don't do anything with Randy Quaid's kids. He sacrificed himself to save the world and all he gets is his name on a monument? There should have been a monument all to him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Kind of odd how they put so much attention on the idea of the one guy being the son of a hero but they don't do anything with Randy Quaid's kids. He sacrificed himself to save the world and all he gets is his name on a monument? There should have been a monument all to him. Isn't that how the real world works? The list of what historical figures we do or do not celebrate is far from just or optimized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Kind of odd how they put so much attention on the idea of the one guy being the son of a hero but they don't do anything with Randy Quaid's kids. He sacrificed himself to save the world and all he gets is his name on a monument? There should have been a monument all to him. Yeah. I mean how many people can name the guy who (claims?) he shot Bin Laden? Did any of the characters in high positions even interact with Quaid's character until moments before the very end? paperwind posted:Why can't the alien harvester ship just scrape the entire surface of the Earth clean of all life (seriously, just drag that poo poo around the planet a few times), then drill to the core, and then up and be done with it? ...I'm honestly not sure which direction your sarcasm is aimed at, but just in case, the aliens didn't do this because their bigass ship was obviously not designed to "scrape the entire surface of the Earth". The thing has legs that it plants itself on. Congrats on coming up with an idea even stupider than the goofy stupid alien invasion movie, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
The biggest tragedy with this whole movie is the fact that they couldn't even be bothered to release it on the same weekend as the first movie. Looking at the 4th of July weekend release schedule I don't see anything worth a poo poo coming out. I didn't hate the movie I just didn't really care about it a whole lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
TheHoosier posted:The Infinite Tarmac from whichever recent F&F movie Some guy ran the numbers and the runway in that movie is 28 miles long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
lizardman posted:Yeah. I mean how many people can name the guy who (claims?) he shot Bin Laden? Did any of the characters in high positions even interact with Quaid's character until moments before the very end? These aliens have sufficient technology for interstellar travel and engineering to build and land a 3000-mile wide spacecraft on another planet. If the entire point is to suck out the core without regard to the future habitability of the planet, then I guess they should have just lobbed a bunch of gigantic kinetic impactors at us, but then I'm giving the movie too much credit. The aliens had to be stupid because it's a movie and the humans have to win somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
paperwind posted:These aliens have sufficient technology for interstellar travel and engineering to build and land a 3000-mile wide spacecraft on another planet. If the entire point is to suck out the core without regard to the future habitability of the planet, then I guess they should have just lobbed a bunch of gigantic kinetic impactors at us, but then I'm giving the movie too much credit. The aliens had to be stupid because it's a movie and the humans have to win somehow. This is true and all, but you're still the guy who seemed to be earnestly questioning why the aliens don't just "scrape" the earth with their ship (and acting rather haughty about it, at that), which is rather impressive. Xenomrph posted:Just got back from seeing this, I dug it but it was really rushed and too short. Like, you could practically see where they were trimming scenes down to keep it at or under 120 minutes. And it wasn't just exposition or character scenes, it felt like a lot of the action scenes were getting pruned and it really took the wind out of their sails a lot of the time. This is all uncomfirmed conjecture, but there were a lot of murmurings ahead of release that a good 10-20 minutes were cut from the movie because test audiences reacted negatively to the new characters. It's certainly believable after viewing - especially for those teens in the car that pick up Judd Hirsch, who appear completely out of nowhere after the destruction and seem way too individually defined to be the no-name glorified extras the movie seems to try playing them up as. Speaking of the new cast (as well as useless conjecture on my part) this movie has "casting couch" written all over it. I know that's a really nasty and specific thing to say and I'm not 100% serious, but there really is a suspiciously high disparity between the levels of sex appeal and acting ability among the new male castmembers. These guys are reacting to the population and loved ones getting killed as if they just lost a basketball game... but I'll be damned if the hunkiness factor was off the charts--to the point where it was literally distracting. They really need to just get into porn, because then we can all see them naked and they have the appropriate level of acting talent required.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
This was the perfect movie. If you envisioned the dumbest straight to video sequel possible back in 96 you'd get this. I loved the reverance it held for the first movie. It was like this was filmed in an alternate timeline where the first movie was high art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Some guy ran the numbers and the runway in that movie is 28 miles long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
paperwind posted:These aliens have sufficient technology for interstellar travel and engineering to build and land a 3000-mile wide spacecraft on another planet. If the entire point is to suck out the core without regard to the future habitability of the planet, then I guess they should have just lobbed a bunch of gigantic kinetic impactors at us, but then I'm giving the movie too much credit. The aliens had to be stupid because it's a movie and the humans have to win somehow. Maybe the humans win because they have the right type of mind to immediately see the coring machine and think "they should use that to scrape the whole planet if they wanted to murder everyone more efficiently"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Also: this movie's greatest sin is that it completely wastes Maika Monroe. Seriously, you get basically the best actress under the age of 30... and you pretty much give her a bit part? The hell?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Also: this movie's greatest sin is that it completely wastes Maika Monroe. Seriously, you get basically the best actress under the age of 30... and you pretty much give her a bit part? The hell? Her part was as big as anyone's. When you have an ensemble cast of like 25 characters, everyone gets a bit part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Monday_ posted:Her part was as big as anyone's. When you have an ensemble cast of like 25 characters, everyone gets a bit part. I mean, if nobody else in the movie did anything, this would be true, but... her character does literally nothing except worry about her fiancé.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 05:57
|
|