ou 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.
😆
Oddly enough...Seems to be the case.
It seems that I think it's a film that's trying to be cheesy and does so (which I like) and you think it's a film that's trying to be serious but comes across as cheesy (which you don't like)
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?
It would have made the movie better to me, personally, because at least I wouldn't have spent half the movie wondering how the **** it was even possible that these things could take out the Air Force in any way, shape or form. I understand that there is a certain level of ____ (the word eludes me at the moment), but I was just overwhelmed. The thing that worked about ID4 is that they showed from the get-go just how helpless we were. They started off destroying a single chopper, to nuking a city, to casually deflecting anti-aircraft missiles, to tanking nuclear bombs. Yes, the Macbook creating a virus that took out their shields was cheesy as hell, absolutely, but at least it didn't directly contradict what we'd already seen; it's not as if the Humans won by launching a missile that punched through their shields, despite the fact that previously we've seen them tanking nukes, but that's the kind of stuff we see in Battle: LA. The aliens can combat our air force with slow moving hover craft, but they can't survive a single RPG round? A full fire team gets its ass kicked by a squad of them, but five people can hold off a seemingly endless amount with almost no casualties? There comes a point where you have to go to the extreme level of just not giving a shit to ignore the plot holes. If you can do that well, kudos to you lol. I can't, personally. I can go as far as ID4, not any further than that.
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
That's way too much words for what should be, "My bad. I misunderstood you."
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
That's just a horrible attempt to paint what I said as "bad." My version, which humors your incorrect interpretation of what you were wanting from me, is SUUUUUUUUUPER short and much more realistic. In real life, the SS would tell his subordinate to STFU, just as I outlined.
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
A shit ton of typing is how you're trying to support it.
You're getting off to a horrendously cheesy subplot from SS Nantz and I'm the one complaining about it's execution as being waaaaaay to over-developed, cheesy, and generally insulting to both our intelligences.
Originally posted by jaden101
Luckily for me that's not what I'm trying to do then eh?
Yes, you've been defending cheesy shit almost our entire conversation.
Originally posted by jaden101
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?
Not necessary, at all. The movie would be over in about 20 minutes. Did you miss that when I said it days ago?
Originally posted by jaden101
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?
What's difficult for you to grasp is that the movie "Furthered the plot at the expense of logic in military technologies and in actions."
It's so utterly simple why the premise is quite shit.
Originally posted by jaden101
Yet you're advocating even simpler and even crappier character development.
Not all of us require unrealistic drama between characters to be entertained: some of us are satisfied with more realistic human interactions.
If you require something more along the lines of a teen WB drama, that's fine and that's your tastes.
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
It was a cliched character. More times than not, REAL field CO's step the **** up and get shit done.
Originally posted by jaden101
If you haven't grasped that films almost always portray themselves to be something they're not by now then you never will.
There's misleading trailers and then there's Battle: Los Angeles' trailer. I'm cool with The Road's trailer showing it to be a bit more action packed than it actually was: the movie still was not that much different from the trailer. I'm okay with a "bro" comedy playing up the funny parts in a film and making it seem less boring than it turns out to be. But completely misrepresenting a movie is a tad bit different.
If you haven't grasped how B:LA was one of the most dishonest trailers in a long while, then you never will.
Originally posted by jaden101
But anyway...Watch this and tell me it doesn't give anything but the impression of being a serious toned alien invasion film.
Obviously, you think that movie wasn't a serious toned alien invasion movie, huh? It was mostly a serious business movie...but was rather cheesy.
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
I think you're assuming that I didn't think that ID4 did not properly represent itself in a movie trailer, huh?
Originally posted by jaden101
"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.
Don't get too pretentious: I was referring to conversations between you and I and you and others, nothing more. There's no secret, conspiratorial, conversations going on in PMs.
Originally posted by jaden101
Quite clearly shows you're not open to anyone's other than your own (wrong) opinion.
This assumes that I do not consider myself hard-headed as well when I've stated that of myself multiple times. 😬
Nice try.
Additionally, that statement incorrectly assumes that you're not wrong and that I am wrong when: we both agree that it was cheesy, the trailer retardedly misrepresented itself, the character development was lacking, and this is all opinion to begin with.
The only way you've gone wrong is you pretending (because we both know that you are quite aware of the capabilities but are feigning ignorance just to support a shit film) that the movie did a good job representing military technologies and strategies.
Originally posted by jaden101
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 was explained "why" to you already. 😬
Go back and re-read our conversation on this particular point until you see the "why" again.
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
Wrong. See the above point to see why this, again, fails.
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
Not at all and you know I don't and that's also COMPLETELY irrelevant to what we are discussing.
Additionally, everything you typed after that is trash. It's been covered why it's trash, too, already. So I say this to you:
"Do things really needed to be rammed down your throat [via repetition] to in order for you to get the points?"
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
Thank you! We finally agree on something.
Additionally, if the aliens had enough "foresight" to protect the CC by putting it underground, protecting it with drone spacecraft, how in the world did a group of 5 marines get anywhere near that CC and it NOT be overwhelmingly protected?
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
Faraday cage around the electronics, of course. A $1 million missile is supposed to be shielded from outside EMI and "EM information leakage." That's not really difficult to employ, either. Guidance would be a non-issue as they come via microwaves, IR, laser, internally guided,etc... and the interference came from the massive amount of Radiowaves which was mentioned on screen.
Originally posted by jaden101
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
Cool. I just thought it was very stupid that they had to gimp the military forces in order to have a plot. When a movie does that, it automatically loses points, in my book.
Originally posted by jaden101
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)
See, this is where we also agree: it WOULDN'T have advanced the plot, at all: that was one of my major complaints. The plot relied on PIS to even "move-along" to begin with.
Originally posted by jaden101
How can you possibly make such a statement for the reasons I've given about a million times by now.
I answered this already but I'll answer it in the most direct way possible: because your reasons are rubbish.
Originally posted by jaden101
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).
I agree that other films were able to work in the "bigger picture" much more successfully, but that's not the problem at all. Cloverfield showed resistance to Vacuum bombs; all artillery and automatic fire; and War of the Wolds and ID4 and nuke resistant shields. I also agree that those films did a better job of showing the "bleakness" of the humans resistances. What B:LA ended up doing, however, was gimping the humans specifically to further the plot: that will not fly with any person even slightly educated on modern military technologies and tactics.
Originally posted by jaden101
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?
One of my major complaints is the shitty military representations of the film against the aliens and then USING military technologies to beat the aliens...contradicting the predicament. So, yes, if they could somehow make the audience understand how gigantic spacecrafts which are emitting a HUGE load of radiowaves, which in turn have other craft communicating back (which would take less than a minute for "modern" systems to see occur) is somehow completely overlooked by the world's militaries and not taken out by a supersonic missile while still in the ocean within the first 20 minutes of the film, then, yes, I would feel better about the film. You know, they could have done that if they would have given everything shields except he command centers and then cited that the command centers had to remain unshielded due to their size and the interference from the massive EM emissions making the shields around the CCs impractical, that would have been better than nothing. It would have made everything "work"...almost. Even if we assume (and there was no indication, at all, that GPS was out...in fact, it seemed like it was up) there is still ring laser gyroscoping technologies would could have easily "guided" the missiles in on their targets without the need of satellite. An example of this is the Shaurya missile (there are multiple forms of this in the US arsenal, some of which are not "available" to public knowledge.) Supersonic and hypersonic missiles that can deliver a high-yield payload in less than 10 minutes without the need of satellite guidance or laser targeting..."punch in" the coordinates and it "knows" where to go once fired. This is assuming a worst case scenario, of course. Laser guidance? Piece of cake. The F-22 is designed to engage and take out it's targets before radar or "visual" are even a factor. This is part of the reason why I thought it was retarded that the F-22s in the first Transformers film were having a "dog-fight" with Starscream.
Back on track, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface on military technologies that could have ended the engagements with the aliens as soon as the started to attack. I was glad the the film showed the militarizes "mobilizing" before the spacecraft even landed, though. That's a plus for the film.
Originally posted by jaden101
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.
And I complained about that, as well, when the first War of the Worlds came out...not to mention the modern remake. 🙂
How does an alien invasion which was planned before the dawn of man (because they had the ships buried "MAYBE" deep in the earth before man even built their cities...and this plot point requires that man not have run into the buried ships despite being able to easily detect the density differences in "prove" tests for oil and other planning) overlook the very basic rule of interplanetary life exploration: "life" contamination. In fact, their agenda of "tera-forming" and flora-forming the earth shows us EXACTLY why the horrendously shitty ending fails horribly to make any sense at all.
Also, this was never about bashing Jaden or bashing dadudemon, this was always about the film being rubbish and our respective opinions onit.
Originally posted by The Nuul
Skyline came from this, They ripped off B:LA.
After watching Battle:LA I'll still stand by saying Skyline had a more realistic approach to an alien invasion.
At least we got to see the aliens from a closer point of view.
Abducting humans (for whatever reasons) made the aliens in Skyline more of a threat than the ones in B:LA...wanting our water for a power source?
Why didn't they just take the water in the first place from the middle of the ocean rather than waste their time & energy attacking & then having to defend themselves?
With Skyline, you saw the aliens up close & that made them more of a terrifying threat. In B:LA the aliens hardly made a presence in the movie, they could've easily been replaced by terrorists or an invading country. B;LA was essentially a war movie & not a sci-fi one.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
wanting our water for a power source?
Hydrolysis and fusion are the the "big" energy types that you can get from water. Water seems like a very logical choice for energy especially when a planet has so much of it.
If we humans weren't so retarded, we'd be using water for our energy sources.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Hydrolysis and fusion are the the "big" energy types that you can get from water. Water seems like a very logical choice for energy especially when a planet has so much of it.If we humans weren't so retarded, we'd be using water for our energy sources.
True.
It's just that those drone ships they had seemed so clunky & noisy in flight. They seemed so poorly designed to be powered by water fusion.