|
88h88 posted:Like I said, there were some bits that were enjoyable but it was overall a complete waste of a concept. Chappie himself = great. Everything else in that film = whatever. Hugh Jackman playing a mil-tech nerd was a highlight
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:yeah see this is what I'm saying about some people somehow never having encountered that guy before "Hey, how come that crazy miltech nerd who wants to use Mechwarrior as a police unit tried to violently solve that problem himself, though without putting himself in danger, instead of following the chain of command and the proper procedures. Immersion ruined." Also, yeah, those people most definitely exist.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
One of the major factors, certainly at first, is that it has no earth analogue. It's not a lizard, or insect or mammal or bird. It doesn't fit in any category of biology we know. Now, there's lots of sci-fi creatures in that category (Zerg, Tyranids etc) but not at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
david_a posted:Zergs are ripoffs of Tyranids which were heavily "inspired" by the Alien in the first place Oh, I know. There was one version where the Hive Tyrant had no eyes, as if it wasn't blatant enough. My point was simply that the only analogues for what the aliens are (bio-mechanical insect lizard things) are other fictional creatures.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Requiem owns for at least acknowledging that people would in no way be an active participant in that fight.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
It's just such a fantastically mean spirited movie. Which was kind of cool after Paul Anderson's AVP
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Immortan posted:In the unrated cut it shows the little kid in the beginning graphically die from a chestburster. I vaguely remember that. Doesn't another kid accidentally kill themselves with a gun? Or am I getting my movies mixed up? It almost feels like a troll job. "You want an all out war between aliens and predators? Here you go. Horrifying, isn't it?"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Cool, this thread is now exactly where the Prometheus thread was 3 years ago. The "characters acting stupid" thing is now a meme, and the thread is entering into the early stages of the dance. What I did love about Prometheus was that it re established the alien biology/life cycle as something terrifying and incomprehensible. As much as I love Aliens, to me it makes a misstep by turning the alien life cycle into something that has an earth analogue. Which would have been fine if all the other writers in the series had decided that that was it. Prometheus turned it's life cycle back into some algorithm/moebius strip. It owned in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The Weyland/David relationship is really complex considering how little screen time Weyland actually had, I know a lot more was planned with Guy Pearce originally. Which is revisiting the themes of Blade Runner. Androids are man without original sin.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:What it comes down to for me is that I really don't care if a particular person "likes" a movie or not. If they don't like it, but their reasons for not liking it are interesting and informative, I want to hear what they have to say. If their criticisms are rooted in unfair, unreasonable, or wrong expectations then I'm not interested. I read a review of Taxi Driver that said it was unrealistic that Travis would take Nancy to a porno theater because he would have had street smarts. That is never not funny to me. Darko posted:The issue is more of the difference between willingness to accept internal change or not. You can see it in objective things like sports fans going "X is going to win/lose" then figuring afterwards why them being wrong didn't count.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:The point of Clemens wasn't to give Ripley a Hicks 2.0 boyfriend though It also marks more or less the only instance of Charles Dance playing someone nice.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:The bit right after they've landed and are creeping through the colony is one of the most unbearably tense scenes I've ever seen, it's up there with the 'silent room' in Cube. That's why I don't like the extended cut. It removes a lot of the tension. I love that the colony just goes dark. Not "the colony has been attacked" it just stops talking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Except AvP was good. AvP is goreporn without any gore. It's an utterly pointless film.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Why cookie Rocket posted:AP:R is agonizing because it's pretty close to being good while definitely being very not good. It does rule in the sense of all the human drama they set up not mattering at all and everyone dying.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Quantifying their intelligence seems to, like much of the Alien expanded universe, miss the point. They're an unstoppable, incomprehensible biological horror from beyond, not goblins with a +3 modifier to intelligence if they're within 24' of a hive. They're as smart as they are in that story.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I go back and forth about the issue of whether the Engineers created the Xenomorph from the black goo, or if the Xenomorph already existed somewhere and the black goo is a byproduct of the Engineers experiments on them. This is also a theme at the centre of Blade Runner, albeit in a different form.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
It's cool to see complaints that Prometheus didn't explain things occasionally come from the same people that complain about Nolan's exposition. But yeah, that opening is beautiful and amazing and enigmatic. When I saw it at the movies, the girl I was with had literally never watched a sci fi film. Talk about getting thrown in at the deep end.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:It does continue a trend of calling the Predator sexually derogatory things ( "ugly motherfucker", Predator; "pussyface", Predator2), though! That's because it's a vagina who kills muscly men covered in phalluses. Predator is not a subtle movie. gently caress it owns. It really owns that one of the most beloved action movies of all time is really about psycho-sexual emasculation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Elysium was a sort of fun action movie but it was maddeningly stupid. The setting didn't make any sense. In Prometheus the complaints are mostly about plot or characters but the setting its self wasn't insulting. I know that you're funny because you made a sex joke out of a foreigner's name. That part was good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:So's film-making in general, you still have to abide by rules or you get a hosed up end result. Only if you don't know why you're breaking the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Yes, that would be the original point I was making. And what is the hosed up end result of ignoring the canon of other movies? Like, the hosed up end result of ignoring the 180 degree rule is spatial relations becoming unclear, though that could achieve a surreal effect or make a point about moral perspective if broken intelligently. What's an example of something going wrong thanks to ignoring the canon of other movies?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Wasn't the original idea of the Halloween films that each would stand alone? Only the first would feature Michael Myers, then each would have their own villain/monster? Or am I getting mixed up?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Halloween I and II were about Myers, III tried to take the franchise into the anthology direction, but fans rebelled because it wasn't the same thing a third time. Ah. I was close. I remember having a long talk with a guy who simply could not parse the fact that there's someone called "Trask" in X-Men 3, and someone else called "Dr. Bollivar Trask" in Days of Future Past. Like, he knew that the X3 character had just been a nod, and thus 'supposed to be the same character' and so could not let that go. That two people who have the same name who are clearly not the same person were both in the same film series ruined him because they took their name from the same comic book character. And that's all I can imagine when people talk 'canon' with regards to sci fi films. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I think my only real problem with it is that Ridley Scott clearly misunderstood why people thought the Space Jockey was so awesome and mysterious. If they knew it was just a burly man in there I don't think anyone would have given a gently caress. There's an irony here. A large, space jockey sized one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Everyone in the movie that expects clear answers dies a horrible, horrible death. The one that thought it was a stupid, ridiculous, one in a million idea dies in a stupid ridiculous, one in a million way. It owns.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The irony is basically described in the post I quoted above. This big mystery of the space jockey captured our imaginations for such a long time, and we begged for answers. But when we finally were given the answers, they weren't satisfying. This is exactly what happens in the movie. Also, the fact that the aliens themselves have been so overused, overexposed and run into the ground that it's essentially impossible to take them seriously or make them scary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Gonna strongly disagree there. The comics and video games have done an admirable job of making them scary. It's a matter of knowing how and when to use them (or not use them),  The creature is utterly over-exposed. It's too ubiquitous to do unironically. It would be like trying to sincerely recreate the shower scene from "Psycho" or the beach scene in "From Here to Eternity" quote:and the balancing act of introducing new elements that keep them weird and interesting without "explaining" them to death.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I own this and it is wonderful. I have one of Deadpool because I'm a terrible nerd.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I do, too. Merchandise is meaningless, they make retro-style figurines of the characters from Pulp Fiction but it doesn't make the movie any less loving awesome. And I'm glad authors managed to find new ways to do it (in 1994) and I'm glad there's a couple of good video games. But it becomes a whole lot harder to make something scary when you know exactly what it looks like and how many hit-points it has. As evidenced by the many, many, many failed attempts. It suggests that the monster itself isn't what's making those examples good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Those were both terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Prometheus and Alien 3? The videos. The movies are fine. Prometheus is excellent.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WSD_cnRbA Never forget
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Every time I watch any of the Alien movies I'm just roaring with laughter and slapping my knee repeatedly every time a xenomorph is on screen. I can't take those clown monsters seriously! They are just too embedded in the cultural mainstream for me to find them at all frightening or threatening. I can't help but see them as anything other than the most humorous puppets ever put to film! Oh an alien? Tension destroyed! Just burn every existing copy of those films cause they can't ever be watched with a straight face by anyone ever again. When you sit down and rewatch the original Alien, do you react the same way you did the first time you watched it? Do you run out of the room screaming the way people reportedly did back in 79? Or do you appreciate it as an incredibly well constructed film, with a phenomenal script, cast, set design, monster design and cinematography? Familiarity breeds contempt, and we've had nearly 40 years to get familiar. It's not the fault of the original films. They just have the same problem that every classic film ends up with. When something's good enough, and everyone copies it, it loses a lot of its impact. The problem lies with what's been done with the IP, which has run that poo poo into the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:People keep managing to be scared of vampires and ghosts and should t after more than a century of movies about them, not to mention other media, so I dunno if this holds water. The gently caress was the last scary vampire movie? Blade? And that's an example of taking the traditional idea of the vampire and transforming it. Ghosts I'll give you because it's a really open concept. Are they poltergeist types? Swirling apparitions? Your own guilt made manifest? You can do a lot with the concept. You can do a lot with the alien concept too, it's just that people don't. Like I said earlier in the thread, I love Aliens, but, in a very specific way, it took the alien itself in the wrong direction. It made it's lifecycle comprehensible, clear, analogous to something on earth. The next movie should have taken it further or thrown it out the window. Which is what Prometheus did.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Sarcasm aside, it seems that your underlying concern here is that a new Alien film won't be as culturally impactful or as financially successful as Alien and Aliens. Most people will tell you that the reason they're so important is that they did new things that were never before seen on screen. For me, that's pretty irrelevant to how good or worthy of existence a film is. quote:Despite what marketers, cultural critics, and businessmen want you to think, Alien is a good horror movie not because it is novel, but because it is well-made and loving terrifying. It is impossible to make a film or other cultural work that diminishes these facts because they are inherent to the film itself and don't rely on any outside information or context. Why would marketers try to convince me of that? Wouldn't that diminish my interest in whatever they were selling? Unless it was the mental an emotional experiences of someone from 1979. It is a really well made movie. When I saw it, however, circa 2004 or so, I was not scared. Ever. Because all the brilliant film making in the world would struggle to overcome how iconic almost every scene in it is (with the exception of Ash's turn) and it's harder to engage with a film like that. Aliens, I saw much younger and knew very little about. That poo poo kept me up for a week. quote:Also, calling something a "classic" and then saying that its impact is diminished because of imitators is oxymoronic. Things are considered classics because they withstand cheap imitation, the test of time, the constantly shifting tastes of the mass market, and so on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
I'm not opposed to doing something new with it. I would just like them to do something new with it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
I really like that Scott did "Matchstick Men" right after "Black Hawk Down" and "Russel Crowe drinks wine for two hours" right before "American Gangster." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM6X_wdZJaE
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It really all comes down to respecting or trusting the writers/film makers. If you want to know the answer to a question a work of art raises, it is a good question. I can also, almost guarantee, that you don't actually want them answered.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Then again there's lots of good writing that have set up very captivating mysteries with entirely satisfying solutions. This will sound snarky, so I'm apologising in advance. Like what? I actually can't think of one myself. I'm not denying the possibility, but what films/books/tv shows are you thinking of when you say that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:A lot of decent horror, movies and books. I always thought lovecraft did a good job sort of explaining mysteries while still keeping them alien and mysterious. I hate to sound like a jerk, but can you please be more specific? Lovecraft is a solid example, but he still tended to stick to broad strokes. The one about the old musician was one of the best. He explains why the guy plays the music (to keep something terrible away) but doesn't actually explain what that thing is in any detail.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 00:26
|
|