Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

starring Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Michael Pena, and Bridget Moynahan.

Robtard won't like it.

Gotta lol at the setting though. Like the dude said in Monsters vs. Aliens, "Because for some reason, aliens always land in America..."

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

Like the dude said in Monsters vs. Aliens, "Because for some reason, aliens always land in America..."

Well for War Of The Worlds it was England in the book.

interesting, as long as they don't destroy staples center

This could be cool; I'm hoping they're not just trying to rip off District 9 or something though.

Michelle Rodriguez, guns, droolio

Sound interesting. The description immediately reminded me of "Children of Men" for some reason.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
"Because for some reason, aliens always land in America..." if you were an alien looking to wreck shit or take over, would you....

A). land in America, the place with the largest, most advanced military force and also has ties to every other super power on Earth that matters.

or

B). land in Antarctica.

A look at the aliens

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=17876

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Robtard won't like it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/films/reviews/images/resident_evil_6_235.jpg

lmfao.

Was waiting for that.

Going by the trailer, she seems too scared shitless to do that stare though in this one, though.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414HZ20PVJL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

The trailer for this movie is sooooooo good though. omg. I don't think the movie will live up to the trailer. It's so ****ing good.

Kind of like the Clash of the Titans trailer.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
lmfao.

Was waiting for that.

Going by the trailer, she seems too scared shitless to do that stare though in this one, though.

Oh no, it's just a matter of time before the Michelle Rodriguez we all know comes out and she's facing off hordes of aliens, while looking at them while looking down; probably in a tank-tank too boot.

In that case, it'll be the scene where she dies twenty seconds later.

Which is an inevitability, since she dies in every movie she's in.

But she'll take a shit-load of them with her and will do so so save people/the group. Cos that's how she rolls, yo.

Anyone know the release date for this?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

Which is an inevitability, since she dies in every movie she's in.

Every??

Ummm i'm pretty sure she lived in S.W.A.T.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Anyone know the release date for this?

IMDB.com says 3/11/11

Originally posted by Kazenji
Every??

Ummm i'm pretty sure she lived in S.W.A.T.

If only she had her spin-off sequal, T.W.A.T.S

Other trailer

CWPkJD0YHeM

The hype is too much. I must calm down... there's no way the movie will be as ossum as the trailer.

Does'nt mean the movie shall be bad.....just keep that hype of yours down.

Best movie ever made.

Originally posted by marwash22
Sound interesting. The description immediately reminded me of "Children of Men" for some reason.

if you were an alien looking to wreck shit or take over, would you....

A). land in America, the place with the largest, most advanced military force and also has ties to every other super power on Earth that matters.

or

B). land in Antarctica.

But thats a bit of a logic fail because if you were an invading force you wouldn't necessarily go for the largest, most advanced military force because you could be very well be beaten early, which is why most Alien invaders in films fail.

Surely you would attack the weakest links on the Earth first then surround the major powers and then seek to fully take over. If you do it that way you are then stretching say, America's forces as they come out to get you.

I've heard the movie is a bit of a let down from people who have seen advanced screenings.

That said, the trailers are excellent. The tone actually reminds me of the Half Life games - very bleak and despairing. I have a feeling that the actual movie won't even attempt to have such a tone about it, though.

Going to watch this.

Saw the other trailer weeks ago, looks fantastic.

Absolutely can't wait to see this.

Hope its better than that "Skyline" movie, that was pathetic.

It's getting mostly decent reviews but the script lets it down, cheesy and cliche. Nothing new except the point of view, from the army. And worse than Michael Bay for army fetichism...

It's rare to find a genre classic that gets released in March - The Matrix & V For Vendetta are the exceptions. Even though this period has become fertile box office ground the past decade, we'll see if this is different enough to grab attention from Sucker Punch and the rest. Right now, it looks like District 9/Black Hawk Down/War Of The Worlds all rolled together.

Originally posted by roughrider
It's rare to find a genre classic that gets released in March - The Matrix & V For Vendetta are the exceptions.

Occassionaly get a few top quality small budget indie movies as well...Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Brick were both March releases.

I really liked it. Glad I paid the extra $3 and saw it in Ultraavx too.

I don't know why but I lost my shit Bridget Moynahan said "I can help, I'm a vet!" I couldn't stop laughing. What a useless actress.

Originally posted by roughrider
Right now, it looks like District 9/Black Hawk Down/War Of The Worlds all rolled together.

The comparison to District 9 is one based on respect. The writer went to the same film school/class as the guy who did the original short movie that District 9 (the feature length) was based on.

Ideas & concepts were mutually shared, especially when it came to the cgi programmes used.

Theres a game for this on Xbox live & Steam.

What a disappointment... another case of trailer better than the movie...

Overall it was... entertaining. Imo,


Pros:

- The fights scenes and I guess just the movie in general, was all choreographed very, very well. The firefights were intense and felt chaotic, and they did a good job of balancing it so that while it was fun to watch, it did not look at all fun for the people actually fighting.

- The CGI was pretty good, especially for only 100 million.

- Michelle Rodriguez was neither irritating, nor did she give off a lesbian vibe. Always a +.

Cons: Everything else.

Cardinal Sin: The alien force is quite possibly the most pathetic alien invasion force I have ever seen in a movie. They use machine guns? Really? Unmanned drones that can be taken out by a single RPG? The command and control center no match for a single artillery round? Once I saw that scene where the rookie was cut off from squad and scared shitless, spilling soap detergent all over himself, and he still managed to kill the alien that had gotten the drop on him, I thought to myself: "There's no way in hell these guys can defeat the US military. Maybe Canada, or some pussy country like Sweden. Not the US though."

Meh, i'll make my own judgement next week when it comes out.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Overall it was... entertaining. Imo,


Pros:

- The fights scenes and I guess just the movie in general, was all choreographed very, very well. The firefights were intense and felt chaotic, and they did a good job of balancing it so that while it was fun to watch, it did not look at all fun for the people actually fighting.

- The CGI was pretty good, especially for only 100 million.

- Michelle Rodriguez was neither irritating, nor did she give off a lesbian vibe. Always a +.

Cons: Everything else.

Cardinal Sin: The alien force is quite possibly the most pathetic alien invasion force I have ever seen in a movie. They use machine guns? Really? Unmanned drones that can be taken out by a single RPG? The command and control center no match for a single artillery round? Once I saw that scene where the rookie was cut off from squad and scared shitless, spilling soap detergent all over himself, and he still managed to kill the alien that had gotten the drop on him, I thought to myself: "There's no way in hell these guys can defeat the US military. Maybe Canada, or some pussy country like Sweden. Not the US though." The rookie didn't kill it though, he put it down long enough for 3 other Marines to come and help him fill it full of lead, then drop a grenade on it. Anyway, the aliens were kicking the armies ass, they managed to take down one central ship compared to how many casualties worldwide?

Think Independence Day with more drama instead of Will Smith humor, overall not great, but entertaining at parts. Generic characters, mostly obvious plot and sub-plots.

Advice: Watch it at a matinee or other cheaper screening. Not worth full price of admission.

And this is the director that they've picked to do the sequel to Clash Of The Titans (2010).

This movie was pretty damn bad. For a movie with so much yelling and explosions I found it to be really really boring.

They also got into the combat too quickly. Personally I wanted more set up to the invasion, in the movie it's basically "so there's some meteors coming, they're going to hit in a min....OH ALIENS ARE ON THE METEORS GO FIGHT THEM".

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.

Movie gets a 6.5 out of 10. It was entertaining, but really lacked in some areas.


Firstly, just like Skyline, this movie failed horribly to capture the modern Military ability. Instead, they "gimped" the crap out of the military for the sake of a plot. The camera work at times was SUPER crappy and they did it to make it "stylized" and "gritty" but just ended up making it frustrating and stupid.

It was UTTERLY retarded that a small company of Marines figured out what the command centers were and how to "take them out." The fact that "ground" troops were doing that is stupid. Why wouldn't they take them out with a missile that...you know...travels at well over 500 mph? Or even the "supersonic" missiles that travel at 2000mph? Or the NEW X-51 that's supposed to go something like 13,000 mph? What about Javelin- like approach where they come from above? There's just so much wrong with what they did.

The missiles were traveling at what looked like a hundred miles an hour. Really?

They also had very low yield explosions. Really?

They couldn't figure out where the "weak" spot was on a biological life-form that was breathing and needed water. Really?

They couldn't detect he massive amounts of RF communication from the approaching crafts and then later could not figure out where they were once they landed and did not take them out immediately on the first sign of attack and ...bla bla bla, you get the point.













Holy crap, we disagree on quite a bit, Blaxican: that's fairly uncommon. I'll break it down and, please, don't think this is personal.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Overall it was... entertaining. Imo,

I agree, there. Better than sitting at home watching re-runs of Family Guy.


Pros:

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
- The fights scenes and I guess just the movie in general, was all choreographed very, very well. The firefights were intense and felt chaotic, and they did a good job of balancing it so that while it was fun to watch, it did not look at all fun for the people actually fighting.

I disagree, heavily. The camera-work was crap. Even "Cops" has better camera work. The fire-fight scenes came off trying too hard to be stylized and in your face gritty but came off as annoying. They tried to make it seem more 'action' by doing those quick shaky in their face shots but it came off as stifling and irritating. The fighting also seemed "weak" except for a few fire-fight scenes.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
- The CGI was pretty good, especially for only 100 million.

I agree, there. I also liked the "set" designs: it looked fairly real.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
- Michelle Rodriguez was neither irritating, nor did she give off a lesbian vibe. Always a +.

I was irritated with her "goo in the face" scene. It was so bad I face-palmed.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
-Cons: Everything else.

Cardinal Sin: The alien force is quite possibly the most pathetic alien invasion force I have ever seen in a movie. They use machine guns? Really?



They are NOT using machine guns...well...they are...but their rounds are not specifically ballistic rounds: they are molten rounds. I guess the best description would be "Ballistic molten rounds."


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
-Unmanned drones that can be taken out by a single RPG?

Yeah, force-fields" and things like it are rather...magic. You've been spoiled by unrealistic alien technologies. Plasma force-fields are pretty much "it" for force-fields and they are very unrealistic on, say, the bio-armor that they had on.

And taking out an unmanned drone that is made from materials in this universe is not unrealistic at all.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The command and control center no match for a single artillery round?

It wasn't an artillery round. It was a missile. And, yes, it would have been no match. Not only would the FIRST shot have taken it out, it would have killed everyone in the vacinity, too. The unrealistic element, here, is how "weak" the explosion was. But, hey, they wouldn't have opposition for the movie if they took out the target from 50+ miles, now would they?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Once I saw that scene where the rookie was cut off from squad and scared shitless, spilling soap detergent all over himself, and he still managed to kill the alien that had gotten the drop on him, I thought to myself: "There's no way in hell these guys can defeat the US military. Maybe Canada, or some pussy country like Sweden. Not the US though."


Lulz. I agreed. I was wondering why the US military did not take them out sooner for the reasons I already outlined.

I thought it was really entertaining and fun. Only thing that made me sit there and facepalm was the over(kill?) wanking of Marines and all that bullshit. Puh-Leaze. I was surprised that Sam 2 from Transformers 2 was in it and didn't scream like a girl that much.

Originally posted by Kazenji
And this is the director that they've picked to do the sequel to Clash Of The Titans (2010). Omg, he's going to ruin the sequel to that masterpiece!

I can't say I'm exactly sure why people even expected it to be notably good in the first place. From the premise to the people working on it to the trailer (not sure what people really saw in this; it painted a picture of a very generic alien invasion/modern war film), everything hinted at it being an unspectacular film.

The script was mostly to blame for Battle, he is a perfectly fine director when not chaotic, just need to see The Killing Room.

And seriously, Clash of the Titans was nothing special... Mindset said it best.

Originally posted by Mindset
The rookie didn't kill it though, he put it down long enough for 3 other Marines to come and help him fill it full of lead, then drop a grenade on it. Anyway, the aliens were kicking the armies ass, they managed to take down one central ship compared to how many casualties worldwide? Why did the alien get shot in the first place?



Your feelings on that are the majority, I think, while I'm in the minority. I was the only one of my family who enjoyed the camera work. However, I am known to have a hard on for shaky-cam, so. -shrug-



I face palmed too. Thing is that I was facepalming at the dialogue throughout that entire movie, so I could deal with her having only one annoying line. Ugh, the dialogue in that movie was so bad. And I have a high tolerance for cliche soldier lingo, too. It was still bad, lol.



That's all well and good, but, my feeling on the matter is, well, you already said it:



If I'm going to spend 13 dollars on a movie ticket, I don't want to spend an hour and 56 minutes shaking my head and wondering how in God's name the United States military, the most powerful military in the history of mankind, can be sent running with its tail between its legs by a force that has inferior tactics and technology that is barely equal with ours. I would rather the had force fields and heat rays, at the very least so that there could be some tension.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why did the alien get shot in the first place?



What do you mean?

Because it's tangible and slower than bullets?

Originally posted by Mindset
What do you mean?

Because it's tangible and slower than bullets? Alright, check it out.

Him

Bumbling, frightened incompetent. Bumping off of walls, spilling soap detergent on himself and crying like a *****. Has no idea where you are, and is armed with inferior technology.

You

Badass mutha****a from another Galaxy. You can jump like 40 feet into the air, have superior technology, a ranged weapon, and you are directly behind your target, who has absolutely no idea that you're there.

Why is it that you end up bleeding to death in a pool while he's suffering from a torn backpack?

I can't remember if the alien shot him b4 or after it jumped down, either way it got the first shot from what I remember, so it did have the drop on him and would have killed him with a better shot, but it didn't get one. Had the other Marines not come it probably would have killed him.

I think what you have a problem with is you expect alien tech/armies to be so much more advanced than ours that we basically have no real chance in a fight, which is the case in most alien movies, Battle LA took another direction.

Originally posted by Kazenji
And this is the director that they've picked to do the sequel to Clash Of The Titans (2010). Originally posted by Mindset
Omg, he's going to ruin the sequel to that masterpiece! i lol'd.

I know i enjoyed the 2010 one but it was'nt no masterpiece.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Alright, check it out.

Him

Bumbling, frightened incompetent. Bumping off of walls, spilling soap detergent on himself and crying like a *****. Has no idea where you are, and is armed with inferior technology.

You

Badass mutha****a from another Galaxy. You can jump like 40 feet into the air, have superior technology, a ranged weapon, and you are directly behind your target, who has absolutely no idea that you're there.

Why is it that you end up bleeding to death in a pool while he's suffering from a torn backpack?

The Alien shot first. He actually did hit him, but most of his shots were off and to the alien's right while the solider fell to the alien's left.

What I think is stupid his how many times he shot the alien and it still "didn't put it down." The shots were going right through the alien.

Came back from seeing and enjoyed it

8.5/10

Originally posted by dadudemon
.
What I think is stupid his how many times he shot the alien and it still "didn't put it down." The shots were going right through the alien.

Did'nt you pay attention to them having a weakspot for a one hit kill

Originally posted by dadudemon
The Alien shot first.

Uh oh...I've seen this argument about a film before and it's still going on some 34 years later.

It was Han Solo.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Did'nt you pay attention to them having a weakspot for a one hit kill

Didn't you pay attention to where his shots were going CLEAN through the alien the first time the scared solider shot him?

So....

you can do some of that shit in some games fire so many bullets and the enemy can be still limping around

So yeah do realise that the aliens were flesh fused with metal so of course its gonna take a bit longer depending on where you shoot them.

Originally posted by Kazenji
So....

you can do some of that shit in some games fire so many bullets and the enemy can be still limping around

So yeah do realise that the aliens were flesh fused with metal so of course its gonna take a bit longer depending on where you shoot them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
his shots were going CLEAN through the
Originally posted by Kazenji
weakspot

yeah but they cleary did'nt know about that weakspot at the start of the battle.......

2010 was such a disappointing year movie wise. Looks like 2011 will be too

Originally posted by Scythe
I thought it was really entertaining and fun. Only thing that made me sit there and facepalm was the over(kill?) wanking of Marines and all that bullshit. Puh-Leaze. I was surprised that Sam 2 from Transformers 2 was in it and didn't scream like a girl that much.

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.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
2010 was such a disappointing year movie wise. Looks like 2011 will be too

Person needs to take another look at least years movies......

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

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?

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

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?

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...


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.

^ promoter.

Haha. I think I may just watch it afterall. Thanks Jaden

I'm not saying it's a perfect movie or even a classic. I just have no idea why anyone would criticise a sci-fi movie on the basis that it's not realistic. Surely I'm not the only person who thinks doing so it's completely and utterly stupid.

I think you missed everyones point Jaden. The fact i think most people were trying to make is that there was no concentration on the antagonist other than...,"hey there's aliens here! go kill them". That's it dude. That was the only explanation that we really received. The aliens may as well have been Koreans. That is exactly how the actors acted in response to the aliens. Even the action was sub-par man, at least by todays standards. Personally i couldn't wait for them to find what ever miracle shot they needed to kill the aliens, so i could go home. What happened at the end of the movie...,they present a miracle just like star wars, ID4 and all the other trash that star wars has inspired. That is when i was done..,game over dude. To much of a happy black hawk down ending for me. Those Aliens would have incinerated everyone and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it.

So, would you have preferred spending ten dollars to see a movie that is ten minutes long, spending the first minute showing the aliens arriving at Earth, and the remaining nine minutes showing how their laser beam or what have you ignites the atmosphere and kills us all, after which the credits roll? That's the closest thing to a realistic alien invasion I can think of.

It's also not very entertaining at all.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I think you missed everyones point Jaden. The fact i think most people were trying to make is that there was no concentration on the antagonist other than...,"hey there's aliens here! go kill them". That's it dude. That was the only explanation that we really received. The aliens may as well have been Koreans. That is exactly how the actors acted in response to the aliens. Even the action was sub-par man, at least by todays standards. Personally i couldn't wait for them to find what ever miracle shot they needed to kill the aliens, so i could go home. What happened at the end of the movie...,they present a miracle just like star wars, ID4 and all the other trash that star wars has inspired. That is when i was done..,game over dude. To much of a happy black hawk down ending for me. Those Aliens would have incinerated everyone and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it.

Which is what made Skyline such a great movie eh?...Because the ending was more in tune with what would've actually happened.

I've obviously not missed your point when you've just restated the same point.

I wonder what every war/battle movie would be like if the superior force won every time because that's what is more likely to happen if it were realistic.

The humans would've been wiped out in Lord of the Rings...The rebels would've been destroyed in no time in star wars.

These movies would've been drastically improved with those endings because it's far more likely than miraculous happy endings...right?

Yeah...right.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So, would you have preferred spending ten dollars to see a movie that is ten minutes long, spending the first minute showing the aliens arriving at Earth, and the remaining nine minutes showing how their laser beam or what have you ignites the atmosphere and kills us all, after which the credits roll? That's the closest thing to a realistic alien invasion I can think of.

It's also not very entertaining at all. [/QUOTE

Well something more creative than the same ol song and dance. Water? Water is one of the most abundant resources in the universe. What kind of explanation is that. I let that slide though because i wanna have a good time. I don't need to see a burning cinder but maybe an ending that doesn't end with the Marines going Hoo RA as they kick alien ass. Maybe, not everyone makes it out okay next time. Maybe the hope for humanity goes unwritten. Maybe the aliens have a civil war. Some want to help us. Dude, I don't get paid thousands of dollars to write or i would be making movies. I just have to watch what tripe they throw at me. I'm sorry if you enjoyed yours but i expect something better than...,a glorified advertisement for the marine Corps.

Originally posted by jaden101
Which is what made Skyline such a great movie eh?...Because the ending was more in tune with what would've actually happened.

I've obviously not missed your point when you've just restated the same point.

I wonder what every war/battle movie would be like if the superior force won every time because that's what is more likely to happen if it were realistic.

The humans would've been wiped out in Lord of the Rings...The rebels would've been destroyed in no time in star wars.

These movies would've been drastically improved with those endings because it's far more likely than miraculous happy endings...right?

Yeah...right.

Yeah, i actually thought skylines ending was great. The movie was decent at best but good ending

The humans wouldn't have been wiped out in lord of the rings. There was logic behind that dude. There was logic behind the star wars rebels. This was just some ol bullshit.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So, would you have preferred spending ten dollars to see a movie that is ten minutes long, spending the first minute showing the aliens arriving at Earth, and the remaining nine minutes showing how their laser beam or what have you ignites the atmosphere and kills us all, after which the credits roll? That's the closest thing to a realistic alien invasion I can think of.

It's also not very entertaining at all.

And you say I missed your point?...Oh the irony.

Originally posted by jaden101
And you say I missed your point?...Oh the irony.

and that means?

What irony. I explained myself perfectly clear. Do you know what irony means?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx


The humans wouldn't have been wiped out in lord of the rings. There was logic behind that dude. There was logic behind the star wars rebels. This was just some ol bullshit.

There was logic in the Empire being ass whooped by a bunch of tree dwelling midget bears?

There was logic in the shockwave from Sauron's tower miraculously collapsing the ground exactly where the bad guys were but left the ground where the good guys were completely untouched?

Yet there was no logic in Battle LA?

If you say so.







http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PfuKxlgffJs/TOqxftSotuI/AAAAAAAAAJo/wXxyv15xRns/s1600/75378-TrollFace.png

????

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

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?

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

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?

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...


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.

Actually sorta agree with this, or at least the premise that hating on this movie based on the fact that it isn't realistic is a bit silly.

That said, I think the movie is shit because I found it to be supremely boring and redundant. Didn't give a shit about what was going on on screen, so the novelty of things going boom and people yelling over and over with only the backdrop slightly changing got tired real fast.

I like Independence Day more than this one because it was way more fun and didn't try to present itself as some kinda of thoughtful or powerful film in the trailers, as this one did, when in reality it was just a director/writer having a hard on for big explosions and military jargon.

Originally posted by BackFire


I like Independence Day more than this one because it was way more fun and didn't try to present itself as some kinda of thoughtful or powerful film in the trailers, as this one did, when in reality it was just a director having a hard on for big explosions.

Have you still not learned the lesson about trailers yet?

The Road being the ultimate example of making a film look like something it quite clearly isn't...The trailer for it had fast paced music, explosions and lots of running away from bad stuff.

That being said...I find it hard to find anything giving the impression of thoughtfulness from a trailer than was just full of explosions and no dialogue. I suppose that's the power a completely unrelated film score can have.

Sure, it's still the fault of the film though if it attempts to portray itself as something that it's not. Before a movie comes out there's nothing else besides trailers to base the decision of whether or not you want to see a movie on. So if the trailer lies, it's still shitty and will hurt the movie, as it did with this, and as it did with The Road, and any other movie that hinted at a tone or a quality in a trailer only to have absolutely no interest in following through.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sure, it's still the fault of the film though if it attempts to portray itself as something that it's not. Before a movie comes out there's nothing else besides trailers to base the decision of whether or not you want to see a movie on.

Reviews?

Those don't come out until usually like a day or two before hand, and those are often untrustworthy, too. Just someone else's opinion.

Originally posted by Kazenji
yeah but they cleary did'nt know about that weakspot at the start of the battle.......




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.

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.

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 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
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. 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.

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.

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?

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 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.




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.




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.



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."

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.





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.



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.




Quite clearly did.





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




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.

Which would be expected



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.




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.



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



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.

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.



Which I already discussed if you paid attention.





See above.





No...It clearly doesn't.




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.




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.



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?




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.

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 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.



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.






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




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?



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.



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.

nDNDQLP3bPI

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.



"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.



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



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?...



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.




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.





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)



This is really is getting tedious now.



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?



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.




Yawn...

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)

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.

Basically, Battle LA is for real men only.

Black men maybe. 313

I said real men. 313

Finally saw this, this movie sucks ass. Its similar to Skyline but only a bit better and even for free, it still sucks. Any Bay movie is better than this. There is nothing even close to a story or structure, poor acting and even the dialog is poor and cheesy.

3/10

This is nothing like Skyline.

Aside from Aliens.

And LA.

Skyline came from this, They ripped off B:LA.

Skyline is like a cheap tranny.

Battle LA is a high class one from Brazil.

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.

nDNDQLP3bPI

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 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.

Going to watch Aliens now to erase this God awful movie out my brain.

We'll see.

I'm getting dizzy from going round in circles and I'm bored as **** from explaining myself.

We'll leave it at I have my opinion and you have yours.

Deal?

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm getting dizzy from going round in circles and I'm bored as **** from explaining myself.

We'll leave it at I have my opinion and you have yours.

Deal?


Sounds good. But you learned that I don't like most cheese...no matter the origin.

Except cock cheese of course.

Originally posted by jaden101
Except cock cheese of course.

Only yours: I like Scottish smegma, best.

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.

I just wonder how the **** the aliens intended to attack the in-land of the country. That kind of dependent on water just screams "take out their supply lines".

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
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.

How do you know what fusion generators from ETs sound like? awesome

Originally posted by dadudemon
How do you know what fusion generators from ETs sound like? awesome

They're silent...so as not to scare the cows you want to abduct.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How do you know what fusion generators from ETs sound like? awesome

They're silent...so as not to scare away the cows you want to abduct.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
They're silent...so as not to scare away the cows you want to abduct.


lol. I agree.

They obviously needed to borrow a microwave emitter from Wayne Enterprises to take away the enemy water supply. Good movie for what it was though. It managed to not bore me for any specific amount of time.