Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
It didn't have to rely on visuals, it had a very rich and intriguing storyline, not to mention a central focus that took a character from antagonist to hero, which is throwing that plot device in reverse."Pitch Black" is Science Fiction. Just like "Chronicles of Riddick", and just like "Aliens". Something that isn't presented as fact to begin with can't really have holes, now can it? It's not fair. I'm sure you like "Donnie Darko" and "Back to the Future" and the like, and as a friend as told me, the concept of time travel is inherently flawed because the characters in said movies are fast forwarding to a time where they don't even know if they exist or not, which ruins the whole movie. Being so overly analytical can ruin the fun of any movie, which as why it's entertainment, and not Science [b]Fact
.Back to Riddick. Riddick is one of the most original Sci Fi characters of all time, as "Pitch Black" was as a movie. Riddick obviously had a lot of backstory, and who's to say that all of this didn't exist BEFORE "Pitch Black" was even written?
There's hardly anything really far-fetched in "Riddick". He's on the run from a bounty hunter, tracks down Imam, being one of the only people who knew where Riddick went, finds out Riddick's hometown is being taken over, and takes them on. There are no gods to speak of. They're warlords, plain and simple. The Elemental's are just another crazy race of spirit-based begins. It's Science Fiction, guys. I don't hear anyone complaining about Riddick having eyes that allow him to see in the dark? That's impossible, but it's obviously "forgiven" in a movie that was otherwise pretty "normal" aside from a bunch of ****in' aliens.
So, no, "Riddick" was much more than eye candy, the quality of which put the movie over the top for me. It's one of the better, more cohesive and plausable Sci Fi storylines of the past decade. [/B]
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
It didn't have to rely on visuals, it had a very rich and intriguing storyline, not to mention a central focus that took a character from antagonist to hero, which is throwing that plot device in reverse."Pitch Black" is Science Fiction. Just like "Chronicles of Riddick", and just like "Aliens". Something that isn't presented as fact to begin with can't really have holes, now can it? It's not fair. I'm sure you like "Donnie Darko" and "Back to the Future" and the like, and as a friend as told me, the concept of time travel is inherently flawed because the characters in said movies are fast forwarding to a time where they don't even know if they exist or not, which ruins the whole movie. Being so overly analytical can ruin the fun of any movie, which as why it's entertainment, and not Science [b]Fact
.Back to Riddick. Riddick is one of the most original Sci Fi characters of all time, as "Pitch Black" was as a movie. Riddick obviously had a lot of backstory, and who's to say that all of this didn't exist BEFORE "Pitch Black" was even written?
There's hardly anything really far-fetched in "Riddick". He's on the run from a bounty hunter, tracks down Imam, being one of the only people who knew where Riddick went, finds out Riddick's hometown is being taken over, and takes them on. There are no gods to speak of. They're warlords, plain and simple. The Elemental's are just another crazy race of spirit-based begins. It's Science Fiction, guys. I don't hear anyone complaining about Riddick having eyes that allow him to see in the dark? That's impossible, but it's obviously "forgiven" in a movie that was otherwise pretty "normal" aside from a bunch of ****in' aliens.
So, no, "Riddick" was much more than eye candy, the quality of which put the movie over the top for me. It's one of the better, more cohesive and plausable Sci Fi storylines of the past decade. [/B]
First, I'm not a big fan of Back to the Future (although a lot better than Riddick) or especially Donnie Darko (highly overrated).
2nd, didn't rely on visuals? What do you call WWF moves and the constant CGI?
3rd, do you honestly think Aliens would have been good had Ripley started fighting god-like figures instead of aliens?
4th, no holes? Not fair? You can't defend movies by saying its not fair to say a genre can have holes and then immediately say Back to the Future has flaws. Thats simply flawed reasoning. Anyway, much of the storyline had to do with brainwashing. The holes I'm referring to are how the brainwashing works on everybody except every main character magically isn't effected by it.
Another big problem was the god awful acting.
As for the eyes and stuff. Its one thing to start out in the first movie with some concepts. Its another thing to completely change the direction the 1st film was in. Like the Matrix. The concept was that they could do crazy shit because they were not in reality. Part 2 started to f*ck that up when Neo could do mental powers against the robots in reality.
Originally posted by Solo
I'm sure you liked "The Pacifier" also, no?
I can't comment, because I've never seen it, and if I did, I don't think I'd need to justify it to anyone here. I'd suggest not baiting me; especially when your only retort so far has been "Definately" to an equally as shallow and unweighted remark/opinion as "**** God for Riddick".
Grow up, guys. This is for hearty movie discussion, not threadcrapping.
😛
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I can't comment, because I've never seen it, and if I did, I don't think I'd need to justify it to anyone here. I'd suggest not baiting me; especially when your only retort so far has been "Definately" to an equally as shallow and unweighted remark/opinion as "**** God for Riddick".Grow up, guys. This is for hearty movie discussion, not threadcrapping.
😛
Originally posted by Myth
First, I'm not a big fan of Back to the Future (although a lot better than Riddick) or especially Donnie Darko (highly overrated).
2nd, didn't rely on visuals? What do you call WWF moves and the constant CGI?
3rd, do you honestly think Aliens would have been good had Ripley started fighting god-like figures instead of aliens?
4th, no holes? Not fair? You can't defend movies by saying its not fair to say a genre can have holes and then immediately say Back to the Future has flaws. Thats simply flawed reasoning. Anyway, much of the storyline had to do with brainwashing. The holes I'm referring to are how the brainwashing works on everybody except every main character magically isn't effected by it.
Another big problem was the god awful acting.As for the eyes and stuff. Its one thing to start out in the first movie with some concepts. Its another thing to completely change the direction the 1st film was in. Like the Matrix. The concept was that they could do crazy shit because they were not in reality. Part 2 started to f*ck that up when Neo could do mental powers against the robots in reality.
I was merely suggesting that you're bound to like some Sci Fi films, where you're supposed to just enjoy them, and not critique their flaws, given the genre itself is flawed because nothing created in that genre even exists. Like I said, if it did, it would be Science Fact.
There are have been a handful of Science Fiction movies that don't incorporate CGI into their films, and those are usually based in some sort of "real life" scenario. Riddick isn't. Riddick is fantasy. Riddick doesn't exist, and when things don't exist, you have to make them. Are you on some kind of Sci Fi smear campaign, because a lot of Sci Fi flicks DO rely on special effects, i.e. Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" to mask a poor storyline, or one that has been used over and over again, like alien invasion, cloning, precognitives, whatever.
David Twohy put together a fantastic universe with an original storyline, a solid lead character, and of course, some killer special effects, created in part by none other than ILM. It's not fair to fans of the films, nor the creators, to suggest it was all visuals, when it was obviously more innovative and original than many other films from the genre in the past decade.
As for yet another Ripley vs Riddick comparison, it's still pointless. Two different worlds, two different characters. "Aliens" premise was simple, to the point, and was rehashed 3 times over in the following 20 years. Riddick was the main focus of "Pitch Black", and he had a dark history, no pun intended. I know they flipped the script and went "Dune" like with the sequel and storyline, but they didn't forget to incorporate past characters, Butcher Bay and the like, all of which were hinted at in "Pitch Black". You just can't compare the two, because "what if's" are irrelevant when they're "already are's", by way of sequels.
I never said that "Chronicles of Riddick" didn't have plot holes. I mentioned that it can't really be critiqued in that regard because it's entirely Sci Fi, with no human or realistic elements implied. "BTTF", as light-hearted as it may be, used a real scientist, real cars, a modern day setting, and promoted a real possibility in time travel. "Riddick" is a straight up fantasy, never presenting itself as anything other than that. As for the brainwashing of the main characters, did you get angry when Luke Skywalker denounced the dark side? If everyone was seduced by a stronger, more powerful opponent, that wouldn't leave anyone to save the day, and that's not how Sci Fi, or movies in general, work. "Riddick" didn't go from protagonist to hero in "Pitch Black" only to puss out in the sequel. Expecting such isn't fair. Much like expecting Oscar caliber performances from an action movie star and a couple of notable supporters. If you were expecting such, then you just don't watch enough Sci Fi, because the genre relies on storylines, with good acting and dialogue as a bonus.
Like I mentioned before, after "Pitch Black" rolled into credits, the story was over. It's no more. Now, it's Richard Riddick's story. Nobody can claim all of this didn't exist before, because we don't know. It's an ENTIRELY different story in any regard, and trying to make comparisons between the two, save Riddick himself, isn't fair, and shouldn't make any impact on reviewing "Chronicles", because they're otherwise unrelated subject matter.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I was merely suggesting that you're bound to like some Sci Fi films, where you're supposed to just enjoy them, and not critique their flaws, given the genre itself is flawed because nothing created in that genre even exists. Like I said, if it did, it would be Science Fact.There are have been a handful of Science Fiction movies that don't incorporate CGI into their films, and those are usually based in some sort of "real life" scenario. Riddick isn't. Riddick is fantasy. Riddick doesn't exist, and when things don't exist, you have to make them. Are you on some kind of Sci Fi smear campaign, because a lot of Sci Fi flicks DO rely on special effects, i.e. Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" to mask a poor storyline, or one that has been used over and over again, like alien invasion, cloning, precognitives, whatever.
David Twohy put together a fantastic universe with an original storyline, a solid lead character, and of course, some killer special effects, created in part by none other than ILM. It's not fair to fans of the films, nor the creators, to suggest it was all visuals, when it was obviously more innovative and original than many other films from the genre in the past decade.
As for yet another Ripley vs Riddick comparison, it's still pointless. Two different worlds, two different characters. "Aliens" premise was simple, to the point, and was rehashed 3 times over in the following 20 years. Riddick was the main focus of "Pitch Black", and he had a dark history, no pun intended. I know they flipped the script and went "Dune" like with the sequel and storyline, but they didn't forget to incorporate past characters, Butcher Bay and the like, all of which were hinted at in "Pitch Black". You just can't compare the two, because "what if's" are irrelevant when they're "already are's", by way of sequels.
I never said that "Chronicles of Riddick" didn't have plot holes. I mentioned that it can't really be critiqued in that regard because it's entirely Sci Fi, with no human or realistic elements implied. "BTTF", as light-hearted as it may be, used a real scientist, real cars, a modern day setting, and promoted a real possibility in time travel. "Riddick" is a straight up fantasy, never presenting itself as anything other than that. As for the brainwashing of the main characters, did you get angry when Luke Skywalker denounced the dark side? If everyone was seduced by a stronger, more powerful opponent, that wouldn't leave anyone to save the day, and that's not how Sci Fi, or movies in general, work. "Riddick" didn't go from protagonist to hero in "Pitch Black" only to puss out in the sequel. Expecting such isn't fair. Much like expecting Oscar caliber performances from an action movie star and a couple of notable supporters. If you were expecting such, then you just don't watch enough Sci Fi, because the genre relies on storylines, with good acting and dialogue as a bonus.
Like I mentioned before, after "Pitch Black" rolled into credits, the story was over. It's no more. Now, it's Richard Riddick's story. Nobody can claim all of this didn't exist before, because we don't know. It's an ENTIRELY different story in any regard, and trying to make comparisons between the two, save Riddick himself, isn't fair, and shouldn't make any impact on reviewing "Chronicles", because they're otherwise unrelated subject matter.
Well, you of course are entitled to your opinion. I guess when it comes down to it, I don't like much big "blockbuster" movies (especially if a lot of CGI is used), I couldn't stand the acting (so many guys had to have that horrible rough tough guy voice) and generally didn't care for how the story was about brainwashing that generally only worked on insignificant characters.
Everybody has some movies where many people like it and while it pushes others in the direction of not being able to stand the movie. For me, it was just one of those movies.