Anatomy of a bad SF movie: Precisely what made it fail?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 01:40
VIEWED: 14308
PAGE 10 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Saturday, November 6, 2010 1:43 AM

Gary Oldman made that movie great.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, November 6, 2010 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

You want a piece of crap that I do enjoy watching, look no farther than any of the Highlander sequels.

Credibility gone.
There can be only one.

The laughing Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Saturday, November 6, 2010 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Credibility gone.
There can be only one.

The laughing Chrisisall

Well, I mainly just like the first movie... and the TV series.

But in my defense, I would point out, if there had been only one, I would not currently be in production of my very own officially sanctioned spin-off mini-series.

And I gotta tell ya, there are few things cooler than getting to make your own spin-off of one of your favorite movies.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CHRISISALL

Saturday, November 6, 2010 3:43 AM

Yes, that is cool Nation!

The laughing Chrisisall

GWEK

Saturday, November 6, 2010 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Armageddon: are you kidding me Gwek? That is still the A #1 example of the non-stop Hollywood thrill ride that, by the 100th consecutive moment of “Oh-my-god-we’re-all-gonna-die-now-soon-and-I-do-mean-ALL-of-us” had me lolling back in my theater seat and somehow managing to roll my eyes while I yawned.

Not to mention that I went to the movie with petroleum engineers, who damned near jumped out of their seats yelling: “You would NEVER use that drill bit!”

The Day after Tomorrow: Next to Armageddon and the Core, possibly the worst science movie ever. But dammit, I LIKE this one! So I take back the disgust I aimed at you, Gwek.

There's no accounting for taste. :)

And, for the record, ARMAGEDDON's sciene is far superior to that of either THE CORE or THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: while all are, at best, comic book-ridiculous, ARMAGEDDON, at least, remains CONSISTENT, while the others don't.

But that's all pretty incidental, because science doesn't enter into the equation. If I go to see a Michael Bay movie starring Bruce Willis, I'm not expecting science. If I want science, I'll read a book.

I stand by my assessment that ARMAGEDDON is probably the best b-rate movie ever made. Why? Characters and conflict. Characters and conflict, not science or facts--or even accuracy--are at the heart of almost every really good movie.

From the moment we meet Harry Stamper, before he even knows he will be tasked with saving the world, he is a character in conflict, particularly with is daughter and protege. This thread continues through the movie until his internal dilemma (his acceptance of his daughter and protege as a couple) is resolved essentially simultaneously with his external dilemma (saving the earth be destroying that rock). Textbook quality screenwriting, expertly executed (which is a credit to the screenwriters more than Michael Bay--a screenwriter's job is REALLY to write a script that's so strong that it can survive contact with the director).

And the supporting case? Buscemi, Duncan, Fichtner, Wilson, Patton, Stormare--Man, does it get much better than these guys?!? Probably the greatest collection of character actors outside a Tarantino or Rodriguez movie...

As for your petroleum engineer friends: a few thoughts. First, it's probably for the best that they didn't see the earlier draft of the script in which the gang makes a drill bit out of diamond fragments they find on the asteroid.

Second: unique expertise is the enemy of entertainment. 99.999% of mankind probably couldn't care less about the type or accuracy of drill bit used. You were with part of the 00.001%.

A related (and potentially ridiculous) example: I hate HAROLD & KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE. Why? I will tell you that it has nothing to do with the story or the characters. It has to do with the plot falling apart for me within the first 5-10 minutes.

You see, I grew up in Jersey City, NJ, which is adjacent to Hoboken, where the movie starts. I know that there is a White Castle in Jersey City, right across the street from Port Authority. All Harold and Kumar would have to do is hop on a train, pay a few bucks, and they would be at White Castle within a few minutes. This is even more apalling because the White Castle in question is around the corner from a neighborhood that is, these days, referred to as "Little India" or something similar. THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY THAT KUMAR COULD NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS WHITE CASTLE.

Further, there are about two dozen White Castles in NYC (which would probably be quickier and easier to get to from Hoboken than the WCs that H&K try to visit). There are also probably at least a dozen WCs in New Jersey that are closer as well.

While this is a huge annoyance to me, the vast majority of people who saw the movie weren't from NJ, don't care much about NJ geography, and probably don't care about where the nearest White Castle is.

I'm no petroleum engineer, but I love's me the WC.

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

CHRISISALL

Saturday, November 6, 2010 5:06 AM

The Montclair WC fish sandwiches were a fave of mine. Fries were good too.

The laughing Chrisisall

IMNOTHERE

Saturday, November 6, 2010 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
And, for the record, ARMAGEDDON's sciene is far superior to that of either THE CORE or THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: while all are, at best, comic book-ridiculous

Well, The Day After Tomorrow goes to the special hell because it was tackling a topical and controversial subject.

Quote:

If I want science, I'll read a book.

...you know, what did it for me with Armageddonoutahere was not the bad science - it was the horrible cliched characters and the toe curling "Look we're going to appease the international market by occasionally showing clips of crowd reactions From Famous Landmarks Around The World."

Guys: I'm not from the US but I am hereby giving you USAians permission to make most of your films about people living and working in the US without feeling obliged to paste in a few shots of Big Ben (pedants, start your engines...) and the Taj Mahal. If I want to see aliens invade other countries I'll watch Dr Who or District 9 or something.

Quote:

Characters and conflict, not science or facts--or even accuracy--are at the heart of almost every really good movie.

Then I give you Deep Impact: same scenario, far more realistic characters and conflict and a much better attempt at getting the science vaguely plausible. Nice balance between SF adventure (astronauts trying to plant bombs on a comet) and ordinary joes dealing with the end of the world. The astronauts are professional astronauts (there's enough drama in the job they have to do without contriving a reason to send some undisciplined rabble of meatheads with them). Best of all, the spaceship actually looks like something cobbled together in a year from shuttle and ISS parts, not some super turbo-charged secret "here's one I made earlier" shuttle. They even name-check (at very little cost to the plot) a drive technology (Orion) which might well be the best bet in a "oh shit we suddenly need to get a huge spaceship halfway across the solar system quickly" scenario.

The ordinary joes really are ordinary joes who's 15 minutes of fame buys them a ringside seat courtesy of the media (amateur astronomers do discover asteroids and comets, and the journalist stumbles across the story just before it was going to go public anyway). Again, though, the human drama is at least related to the subject of the movie: it is mostly about them dealing with being handed a free pass to the shelters when their friends and family will be left to die. Brucie in Ohmygodden could be over-protective of his daughter in a film about horse racing, gangsters, cowboys, purple CGI teddy bears...

OK, so we get a last, desperate million-to-one chance ending - but even then only one of the main protagonists survives and half of America gets washed away (and in those circumstances a messianic speech by the President is probably inescapable).

Sorry, but I quite like Deep Impact and can hardly bear to watch Hamageddon.

STORYMARK

Saturday, November 6, 2010 3:28 PM

I like both asteroid flicks, myself.

As to the shots of other countries in Armageddon, I think it was more about scope than politics. It was a global threat they were facing, not just an American one.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, November 6, 2010 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Case #10:

Serenity

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) Who ARE these people? The flick starts out like we should know...
B) There was a weird 'western' vibe running through it- but isn't this a SF movie?
C) The bad guy, a vicious KILLER, turns good at the end? That's sooo 'Vader'.

Analysis:

A- It's the new thing in movies; start in the middle of a story (you never saw Pulp Fiction?).
See the series it's a continuation of, you idiot!

B- And "Alien" had a horror vibe running through it; Be flexible, and you will be Renewed!

C- This movie contained not only blacks & whites, but shades of gray, redemption, character evolution... touch of reality. Makes some nervous, I conjure.

So, it failed at the box office, but I submit it succeeded as a refreshing change of pace from the glut of same 'ole nonsense out there (the second Transformers movie just came out on DVD for you Hero/Villain comfort-addicts ).

Next case...?

BEWARE OF FALLING RANTS! INCOMING! GAME OVER, MAN, GAME OVER!

Chris, dayum, brother, for such a wonderful, decent guy, you have the looniest, capricious taste in movies. You criticize them for not being what you wanted--not the movie's fault. You criticize them for not being a carbon copy of their source material--not their fault. You criticize them for having state of the art fx which nonetheless don't look perfect--not their fault. And then you turn around and defend out & out schlock (Cherry 2000, seriously? Think with your big brain for a second and tell me what exactly was GOOD about it) just cuz you liked it. And you endlessly criticize a movie for killing a beloved character in an unsatisfying way and yet praise Serenity to the stars when it has the single most needless, bathetic death in all SF!

Serenity

Causes of suckitude-

A.) Adapting a near-current tv show as if you are continuing the series story arc and altering characters beyond recognition (the shy doctor retconned into freakin' James Bond when he has to save his sister). Beloved complex characters turned into cartoons whose personalities can be summed up in one wannabe-Orson-Welles long take full of wisecracks and one-liners, like in any other (other than Firefly) Joss Whedon extravaganza.

B.) The single most needless, bathetic death in all SF that amounts to nothing but masochistic fan service and atheism-porn. A death that ONLY die-hard fans of the show could ever POSSIBLY give a shit about. I would have rather Joss had taken his frustration with FOX out on something other than his characters. Ooh, Wash becomes metaphor for whole series--yeah, that's the ticket!

C.) Another utterly pointless, belabored death--the doctor walked away just 30 seconds ago, but it'll take him a good 5 minutes to get back here when he's called, giving you just long enough to make a speech, but seconds too long to save you, Shep, sorry--contrived for no greater reason than to justify another character getting meaner than usual to propel the trite winning-against-all-odds plotline.

D.) Super Barroom Ruffian vs. the Highly Trained Ultra Assassin! Who will win out in the end???

E.) Apologists who claim Joss HAD to make it stupider because it was a movie and not a network tv show! Does that seem right to you? Anyone? Bueller?

I'm sorry, I'm still a little miffed at our Joss (just a tad) for sabotaging far and away his best work 'cause he thought he could contrive a big dumb box office smash out of his timeless, heartbreaking, thoroughly adult science fiction series.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, November 6, 2010 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GWEK:
And, for the record, ARMAGEDDON's sciene is far superior to that of either THE CORE or THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: while all are, at best, comic book-ridiculous, ARMAGEDDON, at least, remains CONSISTENT, while the others don't.

Consistently bad?

Really – picture the size of the state of Texas. Now picture going 800 feet into it. An explosion there is really going to split the thing in half? Could they be any sillier? And as for the rest - Armageddon is not a better “science” movie just because only .0001% or whatever of the world is aware of the science involved.

Hey, you’ll get no argument from me about the bad science of the other two. Especially the Core. That is the reigning bad science movie of all time. (It is the apex of my colleague’s “bad science in the movies” class.) For the record, I think The Core is poor in general. Dialogue, characters, storyline. Blech. It wins many categories of bad movie. Science is a very small part of its failures.

Quote:
But that's all pretty incidental, because science doesn't enter into the equation.

Now, what’s the word that’s one of only two words in the genre that this whole thread is about, the word that comes first…?

Quote:
I stand by my assessment that ARMAGEDDON is probably the best b-rate movie ever made. Why? Characters and conflict. Characters and conflict, not science or facts--or even accuracy--are at the heart of almost every really good movie.

Except when the extreme non-believability of the overall premise and just about every little detail of the plot destroys suspension of disbelief and makes the viewer see nothing but 90 minutes of contrivances by screenwriters and bad decisions by editors.

*deep breath* That was very wordy sentence.

OK, but I get overlooking bad science in a movie. I really do. I have to do that for just about every sci-fi movie I see, and I manage to enjoy quite a few. But you’ll note what I really didn’t like about Armageddon: the overblown non-stop end-of-the-world series of crises. I didn’t buy into the whole movie, but could have enjoyed it anyway if they hadn’t gotten so damned silly with the never-ending ending. And if they didn’t use the same yippy-ya-hoo sci-fi action stud character who’s in maybe half the sci-fi tales ever written.

Take Michael Crichton. I’ve bailed on his books because they are such macho male fantasies. The characters and plot are as obviously contrived as any of Ayn Rand’s (in a very different way). There’s just no point in reading to the end. It’s pretty much the same character in Seven Days, and in Farscape. Same wild and slightly crazy but very manly and heroic beer-drinking GUY, rough around the edges but ultimately ready to sacrifice himself for those who never really appreciated him enough.

I liked and felt for this guy the first time I saw him, decades ago. Now I’m tired of him. (Except maybe in Farscape. The lead chick in that show was cool enough that I could get over the over martyred overly stud-boy John.)

BTW, Mal comes close, but he’s got much more depth. Also, I think Joss is aware of the stereotype and mocks it even as he uses it. As he did with broody Angel. This makes it work.

And besides, Mal is super hot.

Quote:
As for your petroleum engineer friends: a few thoughts. First, it's probably for the best that they didn't see the earlier draft of the script in which the gang makes a drill bit out of diamond fragments they find on the asteroid.

OMG. That would have been brilliant. Brilliantly bad, so far out the other side as to be totally worth it. It would have lived forever in the lore of petroleum industry. Which, let’s face it, is quite sparse and could use more material.

Quote:
Second: unique expertise is the enemy of entertainment. 99.999% of mankind probably couldn't care less about the type or accuracy of drill bit used. You were with part of the 00.001%.

Uh… yeah. Exactly. That was the point of the joke.

Quote:
THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY THAT KUMAR COULD NOT KNOW

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME