Originally posted by dadudemon
This movie was enjoyable, but barely gets a 6.The acting and the lines were such shit at times that it actually ruined the film.
The plot was alright. This movie would have done MUCH better as a video game than it would have as a movie.
I also did not like the "magical" repair ability of the aliens. That was kind of stupid.
I also did not like that the military was having dog fights with the aliens. that's stupid. The days, we wouldn't be having any sort of dog fights. We would literally be taking shit out from hundreds of miles away.
Also, like, every other scene, what ever the people were working for and accomplished, it was immediately nulled the next scene as if the writer was like, "nevermind."
Best example is
Spoiler:
when the hotel worker finally got his lighter to light up but in the very next scene, the alien is still alive with cinders still burning on its body. They just spent the previous 5 or so minutes showing the struggle and they even gave the hotel dude a slow mo when he finally lit it, just to null everything done in the VERY next scene.The ending was alright but it more pissed me off than anything. Why could not his brain have been put into one of those gigantic super crawlers instead of that "largish" ape body? I have a hard time seeing how that form will allow him to exist with his wife for like...the rest of their lives. I just can't picture daddy tossing his baby into the air while both get a hearty laugh from the "father-child" bonding moment. lol
Anyway, it was mostly a disappointment but was still entertaining. I recommend any sci-fi fan see this. Anyone not a fan of sci-fi, this is not really worth watching. There's so many little writing errors that could have been corrected to bump this movie up to an 8..and that may frustrate some of you.
Some of the cinematography was pretty good. Odd that I would say that, right? But, sometimes, things just stand out to me even in lower quality films.
CGI, top notch, of course.
Sound is alright but could have been much better. They went too generic on the sound for my tastes.
Musical track is unremarkable.
Acting is shit most of the time.
Lines are stupid half the time.
Plot is okay but could have been better.
It did not bring anything fresh to the table and still seems like a very weak version of Gantz.
Wow factor was alright but could have been better.
And so forth.
i finally saw this this past sunday...i liked it however i felt the ending was silly yet open ended
Terrible film.
One thing that annoys me greatly in sci-fi films nowadays is the over design and over complication of alien ships. Star Trek suffered from it with the Narada and clearly this film has taken the same line.
The acting is terrible...There is no context given about anything...It's utterly pointless...And even worse is that the hottest chick in it gets stomped
Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean you don't see film makers failing to consult with film making experts, as lazy?Gotcha.
😬
Lazy?
Then that leaves alot to be said about the production company & producers who invested millions to create the movie. Not to mention the cast of actors who signed up...all having faith in a bunch of "lazy" film makers.
Hollywood must surely be filled with alot of gullible people.
I can see Arnold turning to James Cameron & saying, "It's a lazy idea to have me play a Terminator that can't be stopped by bullets & have an entire multi million dollar film based on that concept. Sequels? I don't think so!"
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Lazy?Then that leaves alot to be said about the production company & producers who invested millions to create the movie. Not to mention the cast of actors who signed up...all having faith in a bunch of "lazy" film makers.
Hollywood must surely be filled with alot of gullible people.
NOW you're getting it. 🙂
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Hollywood actors are not paid to be physics and materials engineers: they are paid to say lines and move about. The film makers are, however, paid to hire experts to consult on their films. 😐
BTW, some actors DO speak up when shit isn't right. Case in point: Ian McKellen is known to speak up when shit is off both before, during, and after film-making as he takes pride in being a first-rate actor.
Some filmmakers DO consult beforehand and make great films that are nicely written, nicely acted, and adhere to real-world science. Example: (I'll post one in a second.)
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I can see Arnold turning to James Cameron & saying, "It's a lazy idea to have me play a Terminator that can't be stopped by bullets & have an entire multi million dollar film based on that concept. Sequels? I don't think so!"
That goes directly against the logic of your correct, previous statements.
What you SHOULD have said was something like this:
"I can see Arnold turning to James Cameron & saying, "It's a lazy idea to have a 300kg Robot go about his daily life but show no concept of his mass in any of his scenes except in ones that you want to focus on his mass. Put a tiny bit more effort into your concepts, please: don't be lazy."
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Ok...Okaaay I'll concede & simply agree to disagree.
You make some excellent points & I wish I had the time to debate/discuss more.Hopefully you understood what points I was making as much as I understood where you were coming from.
Looking forward to future discussions.
I do get your points and you clearly communicating them. However, rejected some of it as unnacceptable behavior from people that not only know better, but they have the resources to actually do better. In most cases, all it would take is sitting down for JUST an hour, before moving to production, with an expert, and ironing out some kinks. At other times, it would require an entire week's worth of debate and alteration. They do not do it because has become common practice in Hollywood to do things that are obviously "dumb" science or horribly plot circumstances. They do not feel like taking time to correct those because they know that they can get away with it. Here's why: the people don't care enough to do something about the sh*t writing, science, and plots.
Transformers 1 and 2 are perfect examples. Lots of writing mistakes that could easily have been corrected in a one hour debate amongst the film makers BEFORE moving to production. It would have taken them a week, tops.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Found an example of a movie that focused on being accurate and not making silly prop mistakes and the like: The Killing Room.
Better example.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I do get your points and you clearly communicating them. However, rejected some of it as unnacceptable behavior from people that not only know better, but they have the resources to actually do better. In most cases, all it would take is sitting down for JUST an hour, before moving to production, with an expert, and ironing out some kinks. At other times, it would require an entire week's worth of debate and alteration. They do not do it because has become common practice in Hollywood to do things that are obviously "dumb" science or horribly plot circumstances. They do not feel like taking time to correct those because they know that they can get away with it. Here's why: the people don't care enough to do something about the sh*t writing, science, and plots.Transformers 1 and 2 are perfect examples. Lots of writing mistakes that could easily have been corrected in a one hour debate amongst the film makers BEFORE moving to production. It would have taken them a week, tops.
...And just when I thought I was out of the debate...you pull me straight back in. 🙄
Actually I do agree with your above comments.
It just amazes me the amount of intereference a potentially good movie has to go through before it hits the big screen & gets judged & criticised by us, the viewer.
A screenwriter, a film maker always starts out with the best intentions but once the rights are sold, passed to the producers, "adapted" by the director then editted & marketed....the end product is not always the potential masterpiece it could've been.
This is why I found your comments, blaming Skyline's film makers as lazy, too generalised. Once the interference starts it's totally out of their control & not entirely their fault. Although Hollywood always wants a scapegoat for films that bomb.
I also think the scenes in Skyline that you commented as "lazy" by the film makers would've resulted in less action scenes if they stayed "accurate to real life" resulting in a less dramatic film. (Regardless of whether you enjoyed the movie or not.)
I recall the 1st Mission Impossible movie went through about 4 different directors & 33 script re-writes before it hit the big screen. It was a big sloppy mess that was badly editted leaving a plot that made no sense at all.
Every one of Alan Moore's graphic novels that have been made into film is another example of the amount of interference by producers/directors & marketting... butchering classic, well written stories/plots from the start.
Hell, we can't have Sean Connery playing an opium fiend, let's cliche his character down a notch to be just another "Indiana Jones".
I read an article where the Coen Brothers had nothing but dispise for the editting department that handled No Country For Old Men. The killing of one of the integral characters (the husband) was so badly editted, alot of viewers didn't realise he was murdered & expected him to turn up in the end to save his wife.
So yeah, no matter whether it's pre-production, during the actual filming or post-production the amount of interference that a script is subjected to is ridiculous.
Originally posted by jaden101
Better example.
That probably is a very good example. It's rumored to do a very good job with handling the science portion. I still have not seen this film, BTW. Does it do well not to make silly prop placement and editing errors? I hate it when films of with a budget that runs over $100 million makes highschool filming mistakes.
Originally posted by MildPossession
The Killing Room is fantastic.
It certainly was. If I cannot find an error in a film (even if I disagree with the character's motivations), the director has done a superb job. I paid special attention to the props, when watching it a second time, to see if I could find prop placement errors. I could not really find anything that did not fall under "moved the prop when the camera was not on the person."
That's not the only reason I consider it "high quality cinema" however. Nicely written and an ending that was not predictable.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
...And just when I thought I was out of the debate...you pull me straight back in. 🙄Actually I do agree with your above comments.
It just amazes me the amount of intereference a potentially good movie has to go through before it hits the big screen & gets judged & criticised by us, the viewer.A screenwriter, a film maker always starts out with the best intentions but once the rights are sold, passed to the producers, "adapted" by the director then editted & marketed....the end product is not always the potential masterpiece it could've been.
This is why I found your comments, blaming Skyline's film makers as lazy, too generalised. Once the interference starts it's totally out of their control & not entirely their fault. Although Hollywood always wants a scapegoat for films that bomb.
I also think the scenes in Skyline that you commented as "lazy" by the film makers would've resulted in less action scenes if they stayed "accurate to real life" resulting in a less dramatic film. (Regardless of whether you enjoyed the movie or not.)
I recall the 1st Mission Impossible movie went through about 4 different directors & 33 script re-writes before it hit the big screen. It was a big sloppy mess that was badly editted leaving a plot that made no sense at all.
Every one of Alan Moore's graphic novels that have been made into film is another example of the amount of interference by producers/directors & marketting... butchering classic, well written stories/plots from the start.
Hell, we can't have Sean Connery playing an opium fiend, let's cliche his character down a notch to be just another "Indiana Jones".I read an article where the Coen Brothers had nothing but dispise for the editting department that handled No Country For Old Men. The killing of one of the integral characters (the husband) was so badly editted, alot of viewers didn't realise he was murdered & expected him to turn up in the end to save his wife.
So yeah, no matter whether it's pre-production, during the actual filming or post-production the amount of interference that a script is subjected to is ridiculous.
But, you see, the fundamental problems with the film are directly in the reason the movie fails: it's plot. On top of that, the acting and some of the lines sucked very very badly. You cannot blame that on "interference." That's just being retarded from the script all the way to the big screen. Even if you can blame the horrible lines and sometimes bad acting on the director and producers, you cannot blame the obviously flawed plot and conflict entirely on them: part of the problem is with the script itself.
The first Tom Cruise mission impossible film was great. It was confusing for some, sure, but I did not see what the big deal was about. NOC list: retrieve. YEA! I KNOW THE PLOT!
And, I'm not sure who you spoke to but no one I know thought the "husband" was still alive. It was very clear that he died.
Even IF you want to blame all of movies problems on interference, it still does not contradict what I'm saying: it only agrees with me.
It certainly was. If I cannot find an error in a film (even if I disagree with the character's motivations), the director has done a superb job. I paid special attention to the props, when watching it a second time, to see if I could find prop placement errors. I could not really find anything that did not fall under "moved the prop when the camera was not on the person."That's not the only reason I consider it "high quality cinema" however. Nicely written and an ending that was not predictable.
One reason I'm looking forwards to Battle: Los Angeles, same director.
That probably is a very good example. It's rumored to do a very good job with handling the science portion. I still have not seen this film, BTW. Does it do well not to make silly prop placement and editing errors? I hate it when films of with a budget that runs over $100 million makes highschool filming mistakes.
tbh I don't pay a large amount of attention to background props and such...Even product placement generally passes me by unless it's hugely obvious such as "I Robot".
It's real world science is extremely heavy though...Deliberately so, according to the writer, director, producer, protagonist (who was all the same person)
Tremendous film....Definitely needs several watches to fully understand it though.
Originally posted by jaden101
Better example.
That was a great movie.
Originally posted by MildPossession
One reason I'm looking forwards to Battle: Los Angeles, same director.
Just watched the trailer again except, this time, in HD.
Looks good. Also, now that I know that the same director is did Battle, I'm looking forward to it a little bit more. It looks like it will be a better version of this film, Skyline.
Hopefully, we do not have the crappy ugly cheesy lines from Skyline. Hopefully, the acting is much better.
However, this film is a much bigger budget so I fully expect it to have lots of mistakes which is probably even more saddening for Liebesman (the director) than it is for me. He obviously has a "thing" for not making silly movie mistakes so I bet he had to swallow his pride as he made this big budget film. Let's just hope he made the best of what script and schedule he had and skimped on some of the easier to avoid mistakes. I've got my fingers crossed...and my eyes crossed, too. pained