|
Looper posted:The first movie was dumb charming fun, this one was garbage on almost every conceivable level. Did they even hire an editor? Come on. I Think this is pretty much on par with the original in every way. Lack of Will Smith being the major mark against it. In terms of entertainment value it's an entirely appropriate sequel. Also who cares if they changed the rules about the aliens a little bit.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
lizardman posted:Honestly, I'm not even sure what you're talking about. You mentioned earlier the world looks "stuck in 1993" but, uh, most of the world doesn't look that much different than it did in 1993. Why would you expect cars not to use gasoline? And I thought it was pretty clear that people were using radios because Earth's satellites had been taken out and much of the world's digital communications infrastructure had been compromised. quote:I didn't at all get the impression humanity was being declared "kings of the universe", they were being invited to join (possibly lead?) an interstellar resistance movement against the hostile alien aggressors. Valuing someone's ability to kill things makes sense if you're recruiting for a military coalition. If this is imperialist it's not any more so than, say, America joining the Allies in WWII or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
I still can't wrap my head around why they didn't take the aliens out of their biomechanical battle suits before they imprisoned them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:Come on. I Think this is pretty much on par with the original in every way. Lack of Will Smith being the major mark against it. In terms of entertainment value it's an entirely appropriate sequel. Also who cares if they changed the rules about the aliens a little bit. the first movie had better (as in extant) direction, acting, pacing, structure, and even, for its time, cgi Bill Pullman's big climactic sacrifice scene was an utter joke of photography
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
God drat this movie was terrible. I expected it to be not all that great from the trailers, but this bad? If you have a choice between this or Warcraft, watch Warcraft for god's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
People are doing that thing where you mix up plot points with plot holes. The entire point of the film is that the alien invasion didn't change anything; it only intensified what was already going on. So (in the present-day of this 'alternate universe') the two superpowers are the US and China, united by an iPod to fight a 'war on terror'. This is not a prequel to Starship Troopers but a sequel to Battleship: a dry comedy of miscommunication and incomprehension, centring around the (mis)interpretation of a symbol. The iPod creature is an enemy, and this 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' stuff is bullshit. (For example: the beacon at the very start of the film, we're shown, is not a distress call. It's a recording of President Bill Pullman's inspirational speech. So how does the Queen interpret this speech? How do you interpret this speech?) The basic narrative of the film is that, in shooting the iPod, humanity has unwittingly allied itself with the Queen. The rest of the film is then about humanity 'redeeming itself' in the eyes of the iPod in order to receive cash, power, etc. That's why the treasure-hunters are in the film. It's a Faustian bargain. The Queen is not there to harvest Earth's resources. She is there to stop the iPod from taking over the universe. Destroying the Earth is incidental. You see, the aliens have a hive-mind but they are not devoid of individuality. Those in the 'black site' prison-camps were effectively meditating while awaiting rescue. The film is constantly returning to the idea of contact with the hive-mind turns humans into better people, but that it's painful - so they avoid it in favour of the comforting child-voice of the ball.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:People are doing that thing where you mix up plot points with plot holes. The plot isn't really what's wrong with the movie though
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Looper posted:I'm sure it'll do well in China, because there were two Chinese protagonists doing heroic things while also being Chinese I hate that I notice this poo poo now, but holy mother of God was it blatant in this film. China's dick was sucked clean off here. The motive of "getting dat lava" is alright except it begs some questions: = The Universe is big. Really big. Extraordinarily big. One presumes that there would be billions of planets that have molten cores but don't have aggro inhabitants. = Or these aliens have hosed* the Universe so hard that they actually have harvested quadrillions of planets and are down to "the ones with guns on them" which gives a rather insane scale to just how much these aliens own, but that also begs the question "so how did we beat them" Then again, enjoying the film doesn't rely on dwelling on either of these points, because it's an incredibly stupid film in every way. It also just happens to be fantastically entertaining. *proper hosed
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Looper posted:The plot isn't really what's wrong with the movie though There's nothing particularly wrong with the movie, except that the exact same story was already done far better in the Transformers series of films. Like it's just pretty much entirely 'Optimus vs Megatron', but simplified. On top of that, ID42 is an extremely unfashionable throwback to the 'meta' 1990s. 'Having to save the dog' was already a cliche mocked in Jurassic Park 2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Didn't the dog in The Lost World get eaten though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
For all the fuss they made about It's Certainly Bigger This Time, the... scale? Scope? Stakes?? felt so much smaller in ID4:R There was nothing like the "deployment" of the city destroyers, and even the moments that tried to feel big (touching down over the ocean) were neutered by Grandpa keeping pace in his Retirement Vessel. That said, I was fully entertained in every second of the movie. I always loved the design of the aliens and was glad to see them get some screen time outside of their ships. The ending was laugh out loud funny though. "It's over. NO IT'S ONLY JUST BEGU-" DIRECTED BY ROLAND EMMERICH
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
I thought it was an interesting choice to have absolutely no Christian or anti-capitalist message in the film
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:I thought it was an interesting choice to have absolutely no Christian or anti-capitalist message in the film Brent Spiner's character has some profoundly on-the-nose Gnostic overtones. I doubt it's coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:There's nothing particularly wrong with the movie, except that the exact same story was already done far better in the Transformers series of films. Like it's just pretty much entirely 'Optimus vs Megatron', but simplified. the acting of almost everyone younger than 40 was really bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
precision posted:The motive of "getting dat lava" is alright except it begs some questions: Person I went to see it with described it as "like going to a petrol station that fights you".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
Looper posted:the acting of almost everyone younger than 40 was really bad All the cg effects in the third act look rather terrible as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:All the cg effects in the third act look rather terrible as well. There was one scene where an alien got thrown around which looked shockingly bad. Anyway, I was reading a thing yesterday and apparently Emmerich's original choice for the President in the first movie was Kevin Spacey but the studio refused and made him recast. That would have definitely been interesting to see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:There was one scene where an alien got thrown around which looked shockingly bad. I could definitely see Frank Underwood punching an alien and delivering the "Welcome to
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Looper posted:the acting of almost everyone younger than 40 was really bad This is true, but I'm willing to give them some bit of leeway because of the weird editing that's apparent. For instance, if it's true that Vivica Fox's character's death was added after initial filming it might help explain why her son doesn't seem particularly devastated about it in some scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
lizardman posted:This is true, but I'm willing to give them some bit of leeway because of the weird editing that's apparent. For instance, if it's true that Vivica Fox's character's death was added after initial filming it might help explain why her son doesn't seem particularly devastated about it in some scenes. you're right, the editing is also really bad!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
lizardman posted:if it's true that Vivica Fox's character's death was added after initial filming it might help explain why her son doesn't seem particularly devastated about it in some scenes. Like the scene where he watches Vivica Fox's character's death?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Speaking of the movie's editing, the Amazon reviews for the movie's novelization seem to confirm what a lot of you are saying, that there's a lot of the movie that got left on the cutting room floor. A common thread in the Amazon reviews for the book are "I hated the movie, but the novelization feels like it has about a half hour of added scenes and fixes almost all of the pacing/plot issues." I like reading movie novelizations since they tend to be based on the shooting script, so it's interesting to see what gets changed or omitted over the course of the film's production.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:Like the scene where he watches Vivica Fox's character's death? Hey, you can do some radical things with editing and CGI. I mean, I only saw the movie once and all, but looking back I'm having a very difficult time recalling any dialogue that directly references that spoiler. Even in the "aftermath" scene where her son is looking at an old family picture, I thought it odd at the time the camera seemed focused on Will Smith rather than Fox... like they had repurposed a scene about him remembering his dead father from childhood to be a scene where he mourns both of his parents. I thought it was strange how much press Vivica Fox was doing for this movie even though in the final film she pretty much has a cameo. She had a full segment on Good Morning America for pete's sake! Did she know? I realize she's probably just happy to be in a big-budget summer movie again, but still...
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Yo so the loving iBall of Wisdom was like YOU PRIMITIVE SONS OF BITCHES SHOT ME DOWN WITH THEIR WEAPONS and nobody pointed out that if you know a planet got hosed by extraterrestrials within living memory you maybe shouldn't hang around being all spooky and ominous and you should instead maybe lead with, like, HELLO I AM NOT GOING TO loving EXPLODE YOU or maybe just sneaking a little and landing peacefully on Earth and learning the language or some poo poo? Also the entire security service of America seems totally powerless to stop one deranged ex-President and one coma victim from wandering around doing what the gently caress they like. Film was awesome though. EXPLOSIONS.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:There was one scene where an alien got thrown around which looked shockingly bad. It's far more likely that Kevin Spacey wouldn't have lowered himself to this garbage. Is there any actor in this flick that's actually in the middle of a tangible career right now? Young Hemsworth doesn't count, he's riding his brothers coat tails.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:It's far more likely that Kevin Spacey wouldn't have lowered himself to this garbage. Is there any actor in this flick that's actually in the middle of a tangible career right now? He's talking about the first movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:He's talking about the first movie. Oooooooh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
This movie was paced like a gonzo porn flick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
I thought this movie was great as StarCraft: The Movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
You know with how they treated some of the other returning characters I'm wondering if they were going to kill Will Smith's character off in the movie and that's why he didn't want to do it. Which then lead to them doing it anyway but at least this way he doesn't have anything to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:You know with how they treated some of the other returning characters I'm wondering if they were going to kill Will Smith's character off in the movie and that's why he didn't want to do it. Which then lead to them doing it anyway but at least this way he doesn't have anything to do with it. Actually I read that he passed up on doing the sequel years ago when it was in planning to do After Earth instead. By the time this movie got around to production he had probably already been written out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:This movie was paced like a gonzo porn flick. Being a gonzo porn flick would have improved it considerably.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
You are right. Starship Troopers gave us Terrans vs Zerg and this gave us Terrans vs Protoss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
I feel like this movie has lots of supporting characters that just do not need to exist. Like you could delete them and their scenes and the movie will still follow the same plotline and nothing would be lost except unnecessary screen time. Lots of the comedy relief that most of them offered were pretty forced too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
Revitalized posted:I feel like this movie has lots of supporting characters that just do not need to exist. Like you could delete them and their scenes and the movie will still follow the same plotline and nothing would be lost except unnecessary screen time. Lots of the comedy relief that most of them offered were pretty forced too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Revitalized posted:I feel like this movie has lots of supporting characters that just do not need to exist. Like you could delete them and their scenes and the movie will still follow the same plotline and nothing would be lost except unnecessary screen time. Lots of the comedy relief that most of them offered were pretty forced too. This is every Roland Emmerich movie. Way too many side characters and boring side plots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
The Day After Tomorrow might be the worst offender. I remember Ian Holm being in the film, and his story going nowhere other than, I guess to die at some point off screen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:This is every Roland Emmerich movie. Way too many side characters and boring side plots. I mean, I suppose so, but dang, I don't remember feeling this way with the first Independence Day, Stargate, and White House Down. e: oh 2012 was his too? Okay yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Much like the action in Emmerich's later films, the menagerie of side characters has become bloated and unengaging.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Revitalized posted:I mean, I suppose so, but dang, I don't remember feeling this way with the first Independence Day, Stargate, and White House Down. In ID4 everything to do with the stripper wife and the dog and the president's wife was a waste of time. Also way too much time with the dysfunctional alcoholic dad and his lovely grumpy kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 21:26
|
|