Battle: Los Angeles

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
yeah right, They were supposed to be badass but instead we get trainees and shit. The movie was way to convenient. They found the Aliens communication ship, come on...,come on. This movie is some ol bullshit.

Spoiler:
Actually, the commnication ship, as I criticized, would have stuck out like a pink cow in a child's playpen. It would be been so completely obvious that it would have been the first item any military took out when they initially attacked. The movie would have been over in the first 30 minutes. lol

But, we couldn't have a plot if that happened, so, instead, we get some fairly stupid soldiers figuring out what the brightest minds should have already figured out.

Now, before someone points out that the Air Force communication offier hinted that they already knew about it, that misses the point: the movie would have been over at 30 minutes in, right after they attacked, from a missile that travels at supersonic speeds with a large yield...from many miles out.

Originally posted by jaden101
Deary me...Does noone have an appreciation for big explosions and cheesy dialogue any more?

I do.

Originally posted by jaden101
People still hail Independence Day as a top notch humans vs aliens all out cheesy action flick and were willing to suspend their disbelief of such stupidity as as an alcoholic crop duster shouting "I'm BAA-AACKK" as he pilots an F-16 into a colossal space ship and brings it crashing to earth but aren't willing to forgive some of the cheese from this film?

ID4 was MUCH better than this film.

And, that "alcoholic crop-duster" was a jet fighter pilot during 'nam. That was also intended and succeeded at being humorous when that wasn't really present in B:LA.

Originally posted by jaden101
Have people got that cynical?...Complaining about an alien invasion sci-fi movie because it's not realistic or believable?....Seriously?

Gotten? Are you kidding?

Let's go over my opinion of ID4:

Awesome, mindless, fun. It was a blast and was patriotic.

Criticisms: Hyper-unrealistic plot turning point of David creating the a virus on a 90s Apple, no less, that disables the shielding of ALL the alien ships. There's just so many absurdly retarded things wrong with that it's almost overwhelming. How old was I when I saw the film? 13.

What does this mean? I'm the same yesterday, today, and forever. My criticisms of military vs. alien movies are the same: if it's unrealistic, I'll call it and it hurts the film for me.

Originally posted by jaden101
I thought it was ****ing great...Why?...Because I don't give a shit if the marines tactics aren't like what they would do in a real alien invasion. Who even gives a shit about that?

It wasn't the tactics of the marines, that was the problem. They did fine, for the most part. It was the tactics of the greater military that was the problem. It was full of PIS specifically to have a plot. At least ID4 used shields as a legit excuse to keep the plot going...much more legit than insulting and unbelievably stupid ineptitude from the world's militaries of not figuring out: "HOLY CRAP! A gigantic amount of Radiowave transmissions coming from those 20 LARGE ships. NOT IMPORTANT! RAWR! Let's move along."

Originally posted by jaden101
I think a lot of people in here need to re-examine why they bother going to watch movies in the 1st place...Because it's supposed to be for entertainment...

Of which, I did not really get much of. Just like Jinx, I was waiting for the film to be over.

Granted, I was entertained and it was better than staying at home, talking about movies, on a message board.

Originally posted by jaden101
I actually think there's deeper resentment behind people's dislike of movies that portray western militaries as heroic because it's so far removed from the notion that our armies are a bunch of evil civilian murdering invaders that the media has pumped into us for the last decade. It's OK people...You're allowed to watch a movie and think "**** yeah, army people...kick some alien ass" without feeling guilty about actually liking the characters and what they're doing.

Rather odd and definitely incorrect conspiracy theory. It's hard to feel patriotic about inept and insulting military. The only character I liked, which I was supposed to, was Staff Sergeant Nantz. But he did not have any motivation for his character that we could really relate to until about 3/4 the way in. They tried to present

Spoiler:
his predicament with his unit as his motivations but it failed, imo, because we still do not know what happened. We are left with this vague idea that he magically survived but we were never told that he fought for them (we can assume he did) and how the situation happened. Other than that, he has no motivations for doing what he's doing. He has no family. No friends...besides that dude in the office that signed his retirement papers. I would have loved the movie to start out with his desert massacre...or least done a flash-back and showed us what happened and then followed that up with a "flashback time skip" that showed a military tribunal investigating and clearing him of wrongful actions. That would have set his character up, even better, imo, than what we had. But you may say, "But he wasn't the focus of the film." No, he really was. The movie pretty much focused on him and his actions.

That really doesn't matter though because of this:

Will I continue to consider your movie advice good? Absolutely.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Spoiler:
Actually, the commnication ship, as I criticized, would have stuck out like a pink cow in a child's playpen. It would be been so completely obvious that it would have been the first item any military took out when they initially attacked. The movie would have been over in the first 30 minutes. lol

But, we couldn't have a plot if that happened, so, instead, we get some fairly stupid soldiers figuring out what the brightest minds should have already figured out.

Now, before someone points out that the Air Force communication offier hinted that they already knew about it, that misses the point: the movie would have been over at 30 minutes in, right after they attacked, from a missile that travels at supersonic speeds with a large yield...from many miles out.

Or rather, they were on to its position when they airforce ppl got killed, aside from that one chick.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Okay, I get you, now. Because they didn't know about the weakspot, shots through that spot don't matter: they would only start counting AFTER they knew that it was a weakspot because the writter/director was farely linear and simple. 😄

😬

And wheres your proof from the movie with that many bullets fired even hit that certain weakspot...... obvisouly it did'nt if the alien manage to keep moving.

Originally posted by Mindset
It was the first thing they tried to attack, but they couldn't find it.

Or rather, they were on to its position when they airforce ppl got killed, aside from that one chick.

Spoiler:
It was a 5 second decision and required no plot at all. The amount of radio waves coming too and from those locations would give it completely away and take about 5 seconds to figure out. I pointed that out, already. They needed it to seem like a "secret" operation of blind guesses to give the plot some resistance and mystique.

Originally posted by Kazenji
😬

And wheres your proof from the movie with that many bullets fired even hit that certain weakspot...... obvisouly it did'nt if the alien manage to keep moving.

Cause the weak spot is the size of a pin-head, right? 😬

It wasn't the tactics of the marines, that was the problem. They did fine, for the most part. It was the tactics of the greater military that was the problem.

That's an even worse and more pointless criticism. It's not like you have a real world point of reference to compare it to.

The only character I liked, which I was supposed to, was Staff Sergeant Nantz. But he did not have any motivation for his character that we could really relate to until about 3/4 the way in. They tried to present [SPOILER - highlight to read]: his predicament with his unit as his motivations but it failed, imo, because we still do not know what happened. We are left with this vague idea that he magically survived but we were never told that he fought for them (we can assume he did) and how the situation happened. Other than that, he has no motivations for doing what he's doing. He has no family. No friends...besides that dude in the office that signed his retirement papers. I would have loved the movie to start out with his desert massacre...or least done a flash-back and showed us what happened and then followed that up with a "flashback time skip" that showed a military tribunal investigating and clearing him of wrongful actions. That would have set his character up, even better, imo, than what we had. But you may say, "But he wasn't the focus of the film." No, he really was. The movie pretty much focused on him and his actions.

The point of not finding out what happened for him to have his reputation is him being judged from ignorance which is what his new squad is doing to him and what we as an audience are supposed to be doing as well. Knowing whether he fought heroically for his old squad who were subsequently killed would take away any doubt as to whether or not he would do that to his new squad...And then his new squad finally judging him on his actions with them rather than what his reputation was previously.

It was full of PIS specifically to have a plot. At least ID4 used shields as a legit excuse to keep the plot going...much more legit than insulting and unbelievably stupid ineptitude from the world's militaries of not figuring out: "HOLY CRAP! A gigantic amount of Radiowave transmissions coming from those 20 LARGE ships. NOT IMPORTANT! RAWR! Let's move along."

Which is not what actually happened in B:LA...It was established reasonably early on that they'd identified the large command and control centre. This was obviously part of Michelle Rodriguez' character's mission. As to what was being done about it beyond her unit's role would require at least 1 more entire sub plot involving an entirely different group of people. The film was focussed on the group of marines...They didn't know what was being done about the command and control ships (if anything) and neither did the audience until they find out relatively late in the film that everyone is withdrawing and so nothing is being done so the protagonist takes the decision to do something about it himself.

It was a 5 second decision and required no plot at all. The amount of radio waves coming too and from those locations would give it completely away and take about 5 seconds to figure out. I pointed that out, already. They needed it to seem like a "secret" operation of blind guesses to give the plot some resistance and mystique.

You could've made the same movie from an entirely different angle and covered that point...Obviously the film isn't about the people who identified the command and control centre's and devised the plan of attack using jets or whatever...But do we really need to see a film from every single point of view involved in a military engagement against an alien invader?...No...It had nothing to do with making it a secret...We just don't see the people who did figure it out and nor did we need to as we had Michelle Rodriguez' character to bridge the gap and fill that plot point....It would've seemed a million times more absurd if her character wasn't in it because it would've been a bunch of marines figuring it out all on their own....All we need to know is that someone noticed the radiowaves coming from those ships and a plan was put into action that went wrong.

Rather odd and definitely incorrect conspiracy theory. It's hard to feel patriotic about inept and insulting military.

Clearly missed my point as I said nothing about feeling patriotic towards the military. I said that it's ok to like the military as shown in a movie and cheer them on regardless of your opinion of the real military.

Originally posted by jaden101
That's an even worse and more pointless criticism. It's not like you have a real world point of reference to compare it to.

That's actually quite wrong. That's exactly why it bugged me.

Bunker Busters: Check.

ICBMs: Check.

CBMs: Check.

Non-Nuke high yield Bombs: Check.

Supersonic Missiles: Check.

Intelligence organizations outside of the Airforce: Check.

RF triangulation: Check.

Were those technologies I referenced directly or indirectly in my complaing/whining about the tactics?: Check.

Originally posted by jaden101
The point of not finding out what happened for him to have his reputation is him being judged from ignorance which is what his new squad is doing to him and what we as an audience are supposed to be doing as well. Knowing whether he fought heroically for his old squad who were subsequently killed would take away any doubt as to whether or not he would do that to his new squad...And then his new squad finally judging him on his actions with them rather than what his reputation was previously.

Regardless, he did not have any motivation for his character that we could really relate to until about 3/4 the way in. Obviously, since the writing was so immature, he wasn't bad. Obviously, by his actions, he wasn't bad. In fact, that whole "recall" scene was redundant and did not need to take place. All he had to say was something to the effect of, "Does it SEEM like I am the type to abandon my squad?"

OR

Have someone else say that same thing. Not the long, cheesy, face-palm worthy dialogue.

Originally posted by jaden101
Which is not what actually happened in B:LA...It was established reasonably early on that they'd identified the large command and control centre. This was obviously part of Michelle Rodriguez' character's mission. As to what was being done about it beyond her unit's role would require at least 1 more entire sub plot involving an entirely different group of people. The film was focussed on the group of marines...They didn't know what was being done about the command and control ships (if anything) and neither did the audience until they find out relatively late in the film that everyone is withdrawing and so nothing is being done so the protagonist takes the decision to do something about it himself.

No, that's EXACTLY what happned in the film and I outlined why, already. I don't think you read my posts.

You're not bringing up anything I haven't already addressed.

I KNOW that they identified it.

But I already stated why it was PIS. Go back and read my original complaints and it's in there.

The fact that they said that they knew how to "take them out" (towards the end of the film) now furthers the notion that it was really shitty writing when they knew how to take them out waaaaaaaaay back at the beginning of the film.

In other words, I don't need the movie explained to me: I saw the film, already, and I did not miss anything important to the plot.

Originally posted by jaden101
You could've made the same movie from an entirely different angle and covered that point...Obviously the film isn't about the people who identified the command and control centre's and devised the plan of attack using jets or whatever...But do we really need to see a film from every single point of view involved in a military engagement against an alien invader?...No...It had nothing to do with making it a secret...We just don't see the people who did figure it out and nor did we need to as we had Michelle Rodriguez' character to bridge the gap and fill that plot point....It would've seemed a million times more absurd if her character wasn't in it because it would've been a bunch of marines figuring it out all on their own....All we need to know is that someone noticed the radiowaves coming from those ships and a plan was put into action that went wrong.

That's a whole lot of words to avoid that issue of a gigantic plothole that you address with a very large strawman:

"It was a 5 second decision and required no plot at all. The amount of radio waves coming too and from those locations would give it completely away and take about 5 seconds to figure out. I pointed that out, already."

Why was it a 5 second decision?

"Bunker Busters: Check.

ICBMs: Check.

CBMs: Check.

Non-Nuke high yield Bombs: Check.

Supersonic Missiles: Check.

Intelligence organizations outside of the Airforce: Check.

RF triangulation: Check."

But why did we not have a "proper" response in a more realistic manner?

Obviously, "They needed it to seem like a 'secret' operation of blind guesses to give the plot some resistance and mystique." And also to actually have a plot because the movie would have been over in about 20 minutes.

Originally posted by jaden101
Clearly missed my point as I said nothing about feeling patriotic towards the military. I said that it's ok to like the military as shown in a movie and cheer them on regardless of your opinion of the real military.

No, you missed my point beacuse it addressed you saying that we feel guilty about our militaries. The opposite of feeling guilty about our militaries is feeling proud of our militaries. Additionally, "patriotism" was mentioned, previously, in this thread. If you want to play word games, then here:

"Rather odd and definitely incorrect conspiracy theory. It's hard to cheer about an inept and insulting military."

That's actually quite wrong. That's exactly why it bugged me. Bunker Busters: Check. ICBMs: Check. CBMs: Check. Non-Nuke high yield Bombs: Check. Supersonic Missiles: Check. Intelligence organizations outside of the Airforce: Check. RF triangulation: Check. Were those technologies I referenced directly or indirectly in my complaing/whining about the tactics?: Check.

Yet quite clearly the film didn't

A: Focus on any of the units that would deploy those weapons or use those technologies

B: Clearly established the fact that there were both civilians and active units still within the area where you are effectively wanting them to completely bomb the shit out of.

Regardless, he did not have any motivation for his character that we could really relate to until about 3/4 the way in. Obviously, since the writing was so immature, he wasn't bad. Obviously, by his actions, he wasn't bad. In fact, that whole "recall" scene was redundant and did not need to take place. All he had to say was something to the effect of, "Does it SEEM like I am the type to abandon my squad?"

Which would've been even more insulting to the audience because you're effectively having people explain themselves in words rather than people "getting" what he is like by his actions and comparing it to what his men think of him based on his reputation...In other words you're learning, as a viewer, about the protagonists character, the same way his squad are.

We were even smacked in the face with this plot point when the Lieutenant blew himself up to save the rest of the squad despite the Sergeant trying to save him and the squad obviously not knowing that conversation took place only seconds before and asking out loud, on screen "Did he just leave the Lieutenant to die?"

So that's lazy enough character development but what you're suggesting would be even lazier.

The fact that they said that they knew how to "take them out" (towards the end of the film) now furthers the notion that it was really shitty writing when they knew how to take them out waaaaaaaaay back at the beginning of the film.

Yet it's quite blatently said on screen that the command and control unit "fell off the grid" meaning it was mobile and therefore they lost its whereabouts.

In other words, I don't need the movie explained to me: I saw the film, already, and I did not miss anything important to the plot.

Quite clearly did.

"Bunker Busters: Check. ICBMs: Check. CBMs: Check. Non-Nuke high yield Bombs: Check. Supersonic Missiles: Check. Intelligence organizations outside of the Airforce: Check. RF triangulation: Check." But why did we not have a "proper" response in a more realistic manner? Obviously, "They needed it to seem like a 'secret' operation of blind guesses to give the plot some resistance and mystique." And also to actually have a plot because the movie would have been over in about 20 minutes.

Do I really need to explain myself and the whole focus of the movie for a third time?

No, you missed my point beacuse it addressed you saying that we feel guilty about our militaries. The opposite of feeling guilty about our militaries is feeling proud of our militaries. Additionally, "patriotism" was mentioned, previously, in this thread. If you want to play word games, then here:

And once again I have to explain myself that it's ok to actually like the FICTIONAL CHARACTERS FROM THE MOVIE REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINION OF THE REAL MILITARY.

i plan on seeing this , but would anyone actually recommend this?

Yes.

Originally posted by The Nuul
Yes.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yet quite clearly the film didn't

A: Focus on any of the units that would deploy those weapons or use those technologies

B: Clearly established the fact that there were both civilians and active units still within the area where you are effectively wanting them to completely bomb the shit out of.

You're missing a very large part of the movie that occurred at the beginning: many hours passed before they actually started their attack.

Even if we pretend that you did not make that error, your complaint is still not legit: the command centers were still clearly shown in the oceans AFTER the attack commenced.

Originally posted by jaden101
Which would've been even more insulting to the audience because you're effectively having people explain themselves in words rather than people "getting" what he is like by his actions and comparing it to what his men think of him based on his reputation...In other words you're learning, as a viewer, about the protagonists character, the same way his squad are.

LOL!

So, lemme get this straight...

It's more insulting to the audience to ask one, very small, rhetorical question than to explain to the audience in a lengthy, cheesy, and lame conversation that conveys what we already know?

You also ignored the "even better writing" of a 3rd party taking care of that poorly written "opposition" to our main character with a simple rhetorical question. It's the same question the audience should have been asking every time they brought up the Staff Sergeant's past.

Originally posted by jaden101
We were even smacked in the face with this plot point when the Lieutenant blew himself up to save the rest of the squad despite the Sergeant trying to save him and the squad obviously not knowing that conversation took place only seconds before and asking out loud, on screen "Did he just leave the Lieutenant to die?"

The only thing that smacks us in the face about the film is the military-cheese.

That question about leaving the CO to die, too, was rather retarded. It was poor writing and was forcing that particular plot point. They could have harnessed that scene to resolve the doubt about the Staff Sergeant's actions in Afghanistan in a less direct way (this is not Saturday Morning cartoons: every single plot point and source of conflict does not need to be talked about in thorough detail...with immature/poor dialogue.) That would have been an even better way to wrap up that sub-plot.

Originally posted by jaden101
So that's lazy enough character development but what you're suggesting would be even lazier.

Yeah, that's true if you consider intelligent writing and not insulting your audience with redundant, cheesy dialogue, and poor script writing, lazy... 😬 Me? I prefer adult movies to be written more for adults and not 8-year-old boys. Granted, I still love that immature explosions and effects...but you can definitely mix in adult writing for your characters with your immature effects. 🙂

Originally posted by jaden101
Yet it's quite blatently said on screen that the command and control unit "fell off the grid" meaning it was mobile and therefore they lost its whereabouts.

That doesn't even come close to addressing what you just responded to. That avoids that problem in the writing of the film, entirely. Instead of trying pander to the poor writing, why not just say, "I admit it: it was crappy writing and the film is full of plot holes." That would run more parallel with your original statements as well and not look like you've back-pedaled.

Originally posted by jaden101
Quite clearly did.

Very mature of you.

Originally posted by jaden101
Do I really need to explain myself and the whole focus of the movie for a third time?

No, but you definitely need the movie explained to you because you think responding with, "We lost the Command Centers" somehow explains the poor writing of them knowing where the command centers for quite some time before they lost them which was ALSO after they started to attack, is somehow a legitimate reply to what I said earlier.

Originally posted by jaden101
And once again I have to explain myself that it's ok to actually like the FICTIONAL CHARACTERS FROM THE MOVIE REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINION OF THE REAL MILITARY.

Regardless of your attempt to try and make it seem like I've somehow missed your point, you said this:

"so far removed from the notion that our armies are a bunch of evil civilian murdering invaders that the media has pumped into us for the last decade. It's OK people...You're allowed to watch a movie and think "**** yeah, army people...kick some alien ass" without feeling guilty about actually liking the characters and what they're doing."

So cut out your dishonest attempt at making a new point and pretending that I'm arguing against another.

You made a comparison to the real world militaries and talked about how we don't want to feel proud of them and how that translates into our like or dislike of characters in a movie because of that real-world disparity.

Let's boil it down to this: You're defending the movie's writing and I am complaining about it. Originally, you tried to imply the criticisms of the plot were hypocritical and invoked ID4 as your justification. Yet, you quite strongly implied that we are supposed to overlook the sh*tty military tactics, cheesy dialogue and plot, and appreciate the film for it's action and "fun." In other words, you agree with me but are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Go back and read your original post, which I responded to. That's how this conversation started.

You also brought up a strange conspiracy theory about hate for western militaries affecting our ability to "root" for the fictional western militaries.

You're missing a very large part of the movie that occurred at the beginning: many hours passed before they actually started their attack.

Which would be expected

It's more insulting to the audience to ask one, very small, rhetorical question than to explain to the audience in a lengthy, cheesy, and lame conversation that conveys what we already know?

It's more insulting to the audience to have to have a character explain his past and have it shown to us so we know what his character is like rather than have us see his character's persona for ourselves.

Besides...What's wrong with cheesy dialogue?...This was my point in the 1st place...I know it's cheesy...I LIKE the fact that it's cheesy...It's supposed to be...Just because it doesn't do it in a ridiculously over-the-top manner like the "Today we celebrate our independence day" speech in ID doesn't make it any worse...If you couldn't see that it was supposed to be cheesy rather than seriously written then I worry.

Yeah, that's true if you consider intelligent writing and not insulting your audience with redundant, cheesy dialogue, and poor script writing, lazy... Me? I prefer adult movies to be written more for adults and not 8-year-old boys. Granted, I still love that immature explosions and effects...but you can definitely mix in adult writing for your characters with your immature effects.

It's not supposed to be intelligent....It's supposed to be cheesy...Which was my original point...You don't criticise Independence day because it's cheesy.

That doesn't even come close to addressing what you just responded to. That avoids that problem in the writing of the film, entirely. Instead of trying pander to the poor writing, why not just say, "I admit it: it was crappy writing and the film is full of plot holes." That would run more parallel with your original statements as well and not look like you've back-pedaled.

Who's back peddling?...I've stated my opinion and my reasons and you're missing them.

No, but you definitely need the movie explained to you because you think responding with, "We lost the Command Centers" somehow explains the poor writing of them knowing where the command centers for quite some time before they lost them which was ALSO after they started to attack, is somehow a legitimate reply to what I said earlier.

How is it lazy writing to not show what was done about the command centres when quite clearly the film isn't about the intelligence units or the army commanders or the air forces?...The entire point of the film isn't to show entire coverage of the battle from every angle...The closest we get to that is the brief glimpses of the aerial battles and the fact that the planned airstrike doesn't happen because they lose air superiority.

A more extreme example of a select POV in an alien invasion movie was the War of the Worlds remake...Would you levy the same critcisms at that?...That we don't see a whole array of human technology being brought against the invaders?...No because clearly the film isn't about the people who make the decisions to use those weapons or the people who deploy them.

So in effect we have no idea whether any of them were used or not because it's clearly nothing to do with the focus of the film.

Originally posted by jaden101
It's more insulting to the audience to have to have a character explain his past and have it shown to us so we know what his character is like rather than have us see his character's persona for ourselves.

Wrong. That's called character development and happens in just about every single film: character's characters are established at the beginning of the film while also providing a "background" or history. Part of the complaints of the film are crappy character development: seems to take out 2 birds with one stone. It would also serve to fuel the audience's frustration with the Staff Sargeant (and the other marine's criticisms) being tight-lipped about what happened, furthering his character development. But, keep in mind, you would rather not have character development and, instead, prefer for the plot to be very simply drawn out for you (in this film) like it's a saturday morning cartoon. I actually do not believe that about your movie tastes, at all, because you've made it quite clear that you have much more sophisticated tastes and understanding in films.

Also, you cannot flip this around and make it about my own personal suggestions for the film: that's not what this conversation is about. This is about the film itself being crap. Again, you've ignored two other alternatives that are much better devices: having a 3rd party utter one sentence or have the main character utter one sentence. I prefer acted-out flashbacks or a proper intro with my character development, not lazy, cheesy, dialogue.

Originally posted by jaden101
Besides...What's wrong with cheesy dialogue?...This was my point in the 1st place...I know it's cheesy...I LIKE the fact that it's cheesy...It's supposed to be...Just because it doesn't do it in a ridiculously over-the-top manner like the "Today we celebrate our independence day" speech in ID doesn't make it any worse...If you couldn't see that it was supposed to be cheesy rather than seriously written then I worry.

This is completely irrelevant to the entire discussion. Why don't I like cheesy dialogue? Other than the obvious reason of it being "cheesy", there was another really good reason presented in this thread, already:

Originally posted by BackFire
Also the somewhat dark and somber and maybe even thoughtful tone of the trailer - yeah, all bullshit. This movie came across as a recruitment video for the military. It's about as hollow a movie as can be.

Originally posted by jaden101
It's not supposed to be intelligent....It's supposed to be cheesy...Which was my original point...You don't criticise Independence day because it's cheesy.

That's not how it advertised itself to be. And, YES, I criticize ID4 for the cheesy parts. Some are fun, others are facepalm worthy. It just so happens that B:LA had almost NO "fun" cheesy parts.

Originally posted by jaden101
Who's back peddling?...I've stated my opinion and my reasons and you're missing them.

No, I missed nothing. You've actually avoided what I just called you out on with you above reply, which now makes it a back-pedal and a dodge.

Originally posted by jaden101
How is it lazy writing to not show what was done about the command centres when quite clearly the film isn't about the intelligence units or the army commanders or the air forces?...The entire point of the film isn't to show entire coverage of the battle from every angle...The closest we get to that is the brief glimpses of the aerial battles and the fact that the planned airstrike doesn't happen because they lose air superiority.

Completely irrelevant to my point. None of that even matters or applies to what I was talking about. Additionally, I covered the last part of your comments, already.

Originally posted by jaden101
A more extreme example of a select POV in an alien invasion movie was the War of the Worlds remake...Would you levy the same critcisms at that?

How does an alien force that has almost perfect shields, even against what looked like nukes, come close to a legitimate comparison to this film?

Originally posted by jaden101
...That we don't see a whole array of human technology being brought against the invaders?...No because clearly the film isn't about the people who make the decisions to use those weapons or the people who deploy them.

Strawman and a non-sequitur.

Originally posted by jaden101
So in effect we have no idea whether any of them were used or not because it's clearly nothing to do with the focus of the film.

You missed my points if you think this is a sufficient point to be made. I'm not going to go back and re-quote myself unless you want me to.

Wrong. That's called character development and happens in just about every single film: character's characters are established at the beginning of the film while also providing a "background" or history. Part of the complaints of the film are crappy character development: seems to take out 2 birds with one stone. It would also serve to fuel the audience's frustration with the Staff Sargeant (and the other marine's criticisms) being tight-lipped about what happened, furthering his character development. But, keep in mind, you would rather not have character development and, instead, prefer for the plot to be very simply drawn out for you (in this film) like it's a saturday morning cartoon. I actually do not believe that about your movie tastes, at all, because you've made it quite clear that you have much more sophisticated tastes and understanding in films.

So you would rather the character development be explained by a simple 1 question and 1 answer of "Did you leave your old squad to die?"...Answer "No I didn't"...And that being all the character development you need.

This is completely irrelevant to the entire discussion. Why don't I like cheesy dialogue? Other than the obvious reason of it being "cheesy", there was another really good reason presented in this thread, already:

Which I already discussed if you paid attention.

That's not how it advertised itself to be. And, YES, I criticize ID4 for the cheesy parts. Some are fun, others are facepalm worthy. It just so happens that B:LA had almost NO "fun" cheesy parts.

See above.

No, I missed nothing. You've actually avoided what I just called you out on with you above reply, which now makes it a back-pedal and a dodge.

No...It clearly doesn't.

Completely irrelevant to my point. None of that even matters or applies to what I was talking about. Additionally, I covered the last part of your comments, already.

How is it not relavent? You're criticising the film based on the fact that we don't see certain technologies being employed by the humans despite the fact that the film doesn't focus on the people who would be the ones to use that tech.

How does an alien force that has almost perfect shields, even against what looked like nukes, come close to a legitimate comparison to this film?

Once again you're completely missing my point. You don't criticise War of the Worlds on the basis of not showing all the armies and weapons that humans have because the film didn't focus on those people. This is effectively what you're criticising B:LA on...That we don't see the humans using massive ordinance on the enemy despite the fact that a small group of marines wouldn't be in a position to use that kind of technology anyway.

Strawman and a non-sequitur.

How can I possibly be using a strawman when YOU'RE the one who brought it up....I'm answering your point. You're the one criticising the movie because we don't see these things being used and I'm pointing out the totally obvious that that's not what the film is focussing on. It focuses on a small group of marines who's mission it is to rescue a group of civilians trapped in a police station behind enemy lines (clearly another reason for the tactics you're criticising the movie for not being used not actually being used in the 1st place)

Or would it be more realistic for the US armed forces to completely disregard the huge numbers of US troops and civilians in an area of a US city and bomb it back to the stone age as a 1st resort strategy similar to the end of Cloverfield....But do it straight away.

Would that have made for a more entertaining film?

You missed my points if you think this is a sufficient point to be made. I'm not going to go back and re-quote myself unless you want me to.

Not really...Seeing as I answered you the 1st time you were wrong.

Saw this movie yesterday and it was a pretty decent flick although you can't argue against the fact that it felt like you were watching one of those movies from the Sci-Fi channel. I'll give it a 7/10.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
Saw this movie yesterday and it was a pretty decent flick although you can't argue against the fact that it felt like you were watching one of those movies from the Sci-Fi channel. I'll give it a 7/10.

😆 Some of those movies are sheer class. How can you compete with such classics are Mega Piranha or Atomic Twister.

Originally posted by jaden101
So you would rather the character development be explained by a simple 1 question and 1 answer of "Did you leave your old squad to die?"...Answer "No I didn't"...And that being all the character development you need.

Originally posted by dadudemon
All he had to say was something to the effect of, "Does it SEEM like I am the type to abandon my squad?"

OR

Have someone else say that same thing. Not the long, cheesy, face-palm worthy dialogue.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...ask one, very small, rhetorical question

Rhetorical questions are not supposed to be answered. 😐

To answer your question, despite the fact that you are not actually addressing me but bringing up entirely new points to discuss...

YES! That would have been LOADS better than the silly shit that was done.

This would have been much better:

"Did you abandon him to die just like your squad?"

"Does it look like I did either?"

"..."

"Exactly, STFU and get off my balls. Stop whining and grow the **** up."

But, you know...that's a bit too realistic for you, isn't it?

But, again, that's not what I was suggesting.

Let's not forget that you were advocating this movie for it's mindless cheesy fun and are NOW trying to support the film for something better than what it was.

Let's make it clear that you will NEVER EVER convince me that the movie:

1. Was not stupidly cheesy.
2. Furthered the plot at the expense of logic in military technologies and in actions.
3. Did not have crappy character development.
4. Tried to pass itself off as intelligent, classy, well-developed, etc. in it's advertisement campaign.

The only reason I'm having a discussion with a person famed as being hard-headed: I'm showing you where you have gone ridiculously wrong and despite the fact that you will never admit that you went wrong, you are reading and acknowledging, at least to yourself, how shitty the film truly was. Proof of this: your arguments have consisted of dodges, strawmans (lol), deliberately misrepresenting my side, back-pedaling, and faulty movie comparisons.

Originally posted by jaden101
Which I already discussed if you paid attention.

Which you shouldn't have brought up if you had paid attention.

(Odd coming from you when you just asked a question that you shouldn't have if you would have paid attention.)

So what does this boil down to? You missed a point already brought up in the thread and ask a question about that point. I indicate that it's already been brought up and then, in turn, address it for you. You tell me that you've covered it already and I should have paid attention when the problem is you didn't pay attention from the beginning.

Originally posted by jaden101
See above.

It does not apply because I've introduced a new subject on a comparison you originally made:

Why did the cheesy parts in B:LA fail and the ones in ID4 had more success with the audience?

Originally posted by jaden101
No...It clearly doesn't.

😬

You can do better than just saying "no."

Originally posted by jaden101
How is it not relavent? You're criticising the film based on the fact that we don't see certain technologies being employed by the humans despite the fact that the film doesn't focus on the people who would be the ones to use that tech.

I've covered exactly why, already.

Go back and read those arguments. Stating that we haven't seen those efforts in no way applies to my criticism: that actually misses my point, entirely. Additionally, there's one glaringly obvious reason why you "misplaced plot eye" fails horribly to even remotely to act apologetically to the PIS presented by the film: the invasions were coastal.

Originally posted by jaden101
Once again you're completely missing my point.

EVERY single time you mention this, it has always been YOU missing the point. 😬

Originally posted by jaden101
You don't criticise War of the Worlds on the basis of not showing all the armies and weapons that humans have because the film didn't focus on those people.

Yeah, you really did miss my point and in doing so, you thought I missed yours.

That point so full of fail it's almost too hard to ignore it as silly.

But I will.

War of the Worlds:

Invasions occurred globally across all areas, not just coasts.

Their ships were shielded and could withstand any attacks on up through nukes.

They used super duper lazer pew pew guns.

What does this mean? Every last complaint I'd have about tactics against B:LA does not apply to War of the Worlds. No amount of tactics and various ballistics would do jack shit.

Thanks for playing and "fail."

War of the Worlds did a good job of showing that. B:LA did the exact opposite and showed us the ignorance of the writer/s of military tactics and technologies.

Originally posted by jaden101
This is effectively what you're criticising B:LA on...That we don't see the humans using massive ordinance on the enemy despite the fact that a small group of marines wouldn't be in a position to use that kind of technology anyway.

This is why you fail:

An ICBM (which does not automatically require a nuke, btw) traveling at supersonic speeds which can be delivered within minutes of hostile actions takes a gigantic shit on any apologetics you've applied to the film. Additionally, the Command Centers were in the oceans for quite some time AFTER the invasions started, further taking destroying any apologetics of "coastal human destruction."

Having a very small group of marines take on a colossal amount of enemy forces by calling in a missile strike which traveled at what looked like barely than 100 Mph, when it was shown that radio communications immediately caught the attention of the aliens, when we have been taking out targets from 100+ miles for decades now...takes such a huge gigantic shit on the entire plot of the film.

We saw, clearly, that the alien command centers could be taken out by very slow, low yielding missiles on a communications network that should not have been usable due to the previous events in the movie. It took how many missiles? 2? That's it? Wha?

If that's all it took when almost all of the forces were mobilized, how much easier would it have been, then, when we first experienced the invasion? Additionally, there's still a very LARGE communication and military infrastructure NOT on the coasts with tons and tons of weapons.

Here's what REALLY happened when the script was being written:

The writer/s made it up as they went along and made only minor alterations to the main plot of the script. This means that the introduction of the command centers about halfway through the film did not take into account the horrendous plot holes it would create with Earth's modern warfare technologies. In other words, the writing wasn't very well thought out which seems to be jiving nicely with what pretty much everyone is criticizing the film over. "Mindless", "cheesy", etc.

Originally posted by jaden101
How can I possibly be using a strawman when YOU'RE the one who brought it up....

This is a horrendous reply:

I never brought this up:

"...clearly the film isn't about the people who make the decisions to use those weapons or the people who deploy them."

Not only is that a strawman reply to what I presented to you, it is a non-sequitur argument because it does not function, even a little bit, in being a legitimate reply.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm answering your point.

You are not: you're avoiding the argument, altogether, with a strawman.

Originally posted by jaden101
You're the one criticising the movie because we don't see these things being used

No, I am NOT criticizing the movie for that. You are saying that I'm criticizing the movie for that but I'm not. I'm criticizing the movie because they WEREN'T used.

Originally posted by jaden101
and I'm pointing out the totally obvious that that's not what the film is focussing on.

Which is a strawman point to harp on and a non-sequitur reply.

Originally posted by jaden101
It focuses on a small group of marines who's mission it is to rescue a group of civilians trapped in a police station behind enemy lines (clearly another reason for the tactics you're criticising the movie for not being used not actually being used in the 1st place)

Incorrect. Using your very own example, War of the Worlds showed us quite clearly why any efforts would fail, horribly, by the militaries.

Originally posted by jaden101
Or would it be more realistic for the US armed forces to completely disregard the huge numbers of US troops and civilians in an area of a US city and bomb it back to the stone age as a 1st resort strategy similar to the end of Cloverfield....But do it straight away.

Again, fail. That does not apply.

Originally posted by jaden101
Would that have made for a more entertaining film?

Guess what? That's exactly what they were trying to do. 🙂

It just failed for some unexplained reason. 🙂

Originally posted by jaden101
Not really...Seeing as I answered you the 1st time you were wrong.

That would require me to have been wrong in order to be a legit reply. In other words, you don't want me to show you, in explicit terms, where you "missed it" yet again.

Let's shorten this: you think the movie justifies the shitty military tactics because it's not supposed to focus on the events outside of our small cluster, I think it's utterly retarded because entirety of the alien forces could have been taken out in less than an hour right after the alien invasion began due to our superior targeting and ballistics technologies.

You think I should like the movie because it's mindless cheesy action and I think I shouldn't like the film because it's mindless cheesy action.

Rhetorical questions are not supposed to be answered.

So you're complaining about what exactly? The question of the protagonist's past was brought up and rather than answering it through dialogue (which is what you want despite then claiming it should be a rhetorical question and not need a vocal answer) the film actually answered it through the protagonist's actions...Which is all the character development he needed. It didn't need any over complication and any simpler (namely a blatent question and answer) would have redundant and insulting to the viewer because it wasn't difficult to know what his character's integrity and personality was as this was shown by his on screen actions.

Not to mention the fact that he really didn't need to explain himself to people he is commanding anyway....But that's an entirely different discussion.

But, you know...that's a bit too realistic for you, isn't it?

That would be realistic in the way Dawson's Creek was realistic. Where ever facet of every character has to be explained in words to the viewers in case they missed it.

Let's not forget that you were advocating this movie for it's mindless cheesy fun and are NOW trying to support the film for something better than what it was.

How am I trying to support it for any more than it being a cheesy simple action movie. I've explained the the character development was simple enough as to not be insulting and you're the one advocating that it should be simplified even more...For no reason because the actions make the explanations pointless.

Let's make it clear that you will NEVER EVER convince me that the movie:

1. Was not stupidly cheesy.

Luckily for me that's not what I'm trying to do then eh?

2. Furthered the plot at the expense of logic in military technologies and in actions.

Again...Would the film have benefited from having tons of redundant characters who are on screen for about the blink of an eye just to show every single technology the US army has being used?

The film clearly didn't focus on that so the explanations of why you don't see that tech being used or why it was or wasn't successful are simply not needed. The group of marines and the civilians didn't know whether the decisions had been made to use certain weapons. They didn't know if they were deployed or not (apart from the air strike that didn't happen which is clearly an explanation of sorts to your criticisms in of itself) so we as the viewer don't know.

Is that difficult to grasp?

3. Did not have crappy character development.

Yet you're advocating even simpler and even crappier character development. The only criticism I would have is that they didn't develop the straight-from-officer-training Lieutenant's struggle with commanding in and overwhelming situation...They alluded to it when he freaked out a bit after the ambush but that was all...If anything that could've used perhaps another situation of two to flesh out his character and the squad's reaction to him.

4. Tried to pass itself off as intelligent, classy, well-developed, etc. in it's advertisement campaign.

If you haven't grasped that films almost always portray themselves to be something they're not by now then you never will.

But anyway...

Watch this and tell me it doesn't give anything but the impression of being a serious toned alien invasion film.

YouTube video

I'm guessing that during B:LA the cheesy dialogue and the cheesy patriotic orchestral music and the cheesy jokes and the cheesy relationship between father/son and the marines was just too subtle for some to realise that it was deliberately cheesy.

The only reason I'm having a discussion with a person famed as being hard-headed: I'm showing you where you have gone ridiculously wrong and despite the fact that you will never admit that you went wrong, you are reading and acknowledging, at least to yourself, how shitty the film truly was. Proof of this: your arguments have consisted of dodges, strawmans (lol), deliberately misrepresenting my side, back-pedaling, and faulty movie comparisons.

"Famed"...Gold...absolute gold...This gives the impression that at some point you've had some PM conversation with another member about me...If that's the case...I'm flattered...truly...But before this descends in to petty bickering I'll simply bring up one glaringly huge hypocrisy in it.

Let's make it clear that you will NEVER EVER convince me that the movie:

Quite clearly shows you're not open to anyone's other than your own (wrong) opinion.

Which you shouldn't have brought up if you had paid attention.

So let me get this right...People (you) are criticising the movie for cheesy dialogue...I highlight the fact that it's supposed to be cheesy yet I shouldn't have brought it up because whhyyy?...

It does not apply because I've introduced a new subject on a comparison you originally made.

Why did the cheesy parts in B:LA fail and the ones in ID4 had more success with the audience?

Because apparently some people only see cheese when they are overwhelmed with it and when they aren't then they think the film is trying to be serious.

War of the Worlds did a good job of showing that. B:LA did the exact opposite and showed us the ignorance of the writer/s of military tactics and technologies.

Again...Do things really needed to be rammed down your throat rather than alluded to in order for you to get the points?

The alien invasion managed push forward fast enough to completely obliterate the F.O.B before the US forces could mount any kind of meaningful defence. Do we really need to see everything the US army has being utilised and failing to know that it didn't, for whatever reason, work?

I personally don't think the film would've benefited from it but clearly you do. We'll call this a difference of opinion or a difference of what each of us needs from a film to enjoy it.

Having a very small group of marines take on a colossal amount of enemy forces by calling in a missile strike which traveled at what looked like barely than 100 Mph, when it was shown that radio communications immediately caught the attention of the aliens, when we have been taking out targets from 100+ miles for decades now...takes such a huge gigantic shit on the entire plot of the film.

Granted I did think the incoming missile was pretty unconvincing. I also didn't really like the matrix revolutions style "drone protecting the main machine" aspect either.

I also don't know the inner workings of US weaponry enough to know why the command centre managed to black out a huge area of the city and drain power from the helicopters but didn't affect the incoming missle's either propulsion or guidance.

To use this as as a reason for why some weaponry of the US forces didn't work would be conjecture though so I won't

Not least of all because I still don't see how it would've advanced the plot of a film that focuses on a group of marines and their small part in the whole. (For reasons I've already went into before)

I never brought this up: "...clearly the film isn't about the people who make the decisions to use those weapons or the people who deploy them." Not only is that a strawman reply to what I presented to you, it is a non-sequitur argument because it does not function, even a little bit, in being a legitimate reply.

This is really is getting tedious now.

No, I am NOT criticizing the movie for that. You are saying that I'm criticizing the movie for that but I'm not. I'm criticizing the movie because they WEREN'T used.

How can you possibly make such a statement for the reasons I've given about a million times by now.

The only thing that would give a small level of legitimacy to your argument is that other films have focussed on a certain group of people entirely yet still managed to work "bigger picture" elements into them successfully. Take Cloverfield for example...It was obviously about and focussed on a normal bunch of New Yorkers yet still managed to show B2 bombers and the eventual complete destruction of Manhattan (although this is obviously only alluded to at the end).

My point is that, for me at least, B:LA wouldn't have benefited from those "bigger picture" aspects...You obviously think that it would have...Is this a fair thing to say?

Incorrect. Using your very own example, War of the Worlds showed us quite clearly why any efforts would fail, horribly, by the militaries.

Yet it still needed an absolutely gigantic amount of PIS (something you clearly hate) for the aliens to die at the end. I'll leave you to figure out what the glaring plot hole was.

Again, fail. That does not apply.

Yawn...