Anatomy of a bad SF movie: Precisely what made it fail?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 01:40
VIEWED: 14308
PAGE 4 of 11
Quote:If I could get a copy of the flick with that ending, I would definitely own it. Smith did a really good acting job there. And he had a Mustang...
Originally posted by Storymark:
It is odd that the alternate "He Lives" ending of IAL actually captures the spirit of the book better than the one where he dies.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Case #7 (or is it 6? Okay eff the format):
Cherry 2000
Apparent Causes of Suckitude-
A) It kinda looked low budget...
B) Lead actor was kinda bland.
C) It was so 80's...
Analysis:
A- It WAS!!!
B- He was, but it kinda fit in an everyman sort of way.
C- Like Logan's Run WASN'T SO 70's???
So, actually, this wasn't a bad flick...
Was it?
Next case...
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Case # whatever:
Minority Report
Apparent Causes of Suckitude-
A) The ending sucked.
B) The rolling eyeballs.
C) What's in the fridge.
Analysis:
A- Give the peeps what they want, regardless of the movie's integrity. Happy end for Tom, even though his Son is missing presumed dead, and the psychics get a fuzzy home.
B- How exactly do eyeballs roll when internal blood pressure TO them is terminated?? We're talkin' deflated balloons here.
C- Eat a putrefied sandwich & then down turned milk??? Can you spell OVERKILL??
A near perfect SF flick imploded by nonsense.
Next case?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Really good analysis Gwek. Really good, bravo.
SGG
Tawabawho?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Case #10:
Waterworld
Apparent Causes of Suckitude-
A) A 'gill' man evolving in such a short time???
B) He can stand crazy underwater pressure, but can't bend puny bars???
C) A human chick CAN stand those crazy underwater pressures????
Analysis:
A-C: Silly silly British writers.
So, Waterworld makes The Postman look like Lawrence Of Arabia....
Next case?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Very funny.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Seriously? You thought they'd be Immortal? I don't recall the first implying that.Quote:Okay, let's say you just don't want to acknowledge the silliness here...
You seem to have wanted them to fall into the same "Hero v Villain" trap that you just agreed torpedoes most superhero sequels.
Neo Dies, is revived by Trinity.
Trinity dies, is revived by Neo.
Trinity dies FOR REAL, then Neo gets blind & dies FOR REAL.
What? Were their first deaths just 'dry runs'????
Again, because they survived death once, they're supposed to be immune to it?
Two things you seem to be willfully ignoring. One - they both "died" in the Matrix, where Neo had a degree of power that let him bend the rules. Their "real" deaths were both in the "real" world. A rather important distinction I'm surprised you would gloss over so emphatically.
Two - It's a mythic character arc. Bringing them back when they did served a story purpose, as did their deaths. Neither was arbitrary.Quote:
Oh, and the machines are evil.
That was never stated. Machines were the enemy, yes. But evil is rather subjective, and it was set up pretty well in the first film that the machines did what they did purely out of self preservation. This was covered in Morpheus' expository speech when he lays out the truth for Neo, and then was furthered by the Animatrix shorts.Quote:
But later, only Smith seems to be evil, the rest of the machines can be aiight. Go ahead, harvest our energy, as long as you give up some peeps that wanna go... we know you'll keep your part of the bargain, especially since Captain Neo has vanquished Galactus Smith!!!
Puhleeeeeeze.
Yes, damn them for presenting an enemy that's not pure evil, and has shading to their motives.
Pardon me, but I kinda prefer layers to mustache-twirling villainy.
And Smith didn't just become evil either, he had a fairly clearly drawn arc that started out in the first film.
Hell, even your final little complaint - that "we know you'll keep your part of the bargain" part, is rather nonsensical, since characters flat out say on screen right there at the end that it probably wont last.
But I also think you're touching on a bigger issue. I think most people wanted to see Neo free everyone from the Matrix, vanquishing the machines entirely - a big happy, simple story. Thing is, this wouldn't make much sense given what established, again, in the first film. Okay, sure, he could conceivably have set them all free - an army of weak, helpless people with atrophied bodies falling en mass, by the millions, into the mucky waters Neo was scooped from, to die hopelessly. Or, even if they had survived, to die of starvation amidst a nascent society not equipped to handle such a population.
The first film, while a fun action-adventure, did set up a complex world that required complex solutions (and thus storylines for the sequels). The seeds for all the things you're complaining about were established for the most part, in the original.
Not saying they're perfect or even great. They do have their flaws (I personally get more frustrated by the 2nd one). But they're hardly train wrecks or awful films as some claims. And referring back to an earlier conversation, I will gladly choose a film that strives for greatness and falls short (as I feel these do) than one that aims for mediocrity and nails it (like say, Iron Man 2).
Like I said, it's not the story many WANTED - a big simplistic adventure - but that's to a degree, their problem. The films established a complex world with complicated issues, ideas and themes, and the sequels followed through on what the first film actually established, not the comic book people wanted them to be.
"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 kNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Really good analysis Gwek. Really good, bravo.
SGG
Tawabawho?
Thanks. I'm glad a few people saw it within the larger discussion of the MATRIX. :)
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
A: Michael Bay is a mediocre director at best, and a terrible writer(*).
While I don't disagree with you about TRANSFORMERS (When I saw it, it was actually forgetting about the movie AS I WAS WATCHING IT), I think Michael Bay has his moments, especially his earlier movies. ARMAGEDDON is nothing short of brilliant, and I think THE ROCK is only slightly behind. The first BAD BOYS movie is also close to excellent.
It's funny you should refer to Bay as the epitome of the music video generation of directors because he did, indeed, start out directing videos. His Meat Loaf videos are nothing short of brilliant, and include "I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)," "Objects in the Rearview Mirror (May Appear Closer Than They Are" (much of which presages many of the backstory elements of PEARL HARBOR), and "Rock and Roll Dreams Come Through" (featuring a young Angelina Jolie).
Bay has also, by the way, said that his favorite movie is "West Side Story" (and, in retrospect, you can see the impact it has had on his visuals).
But I digress. What I wanted to say initially is that I once read an article that pretty much summed up Michael Bay's style perfectly. The quote went something like this:
"Michael Bay doesn't direct movies. Michael Bay direct moments."
When he does a GOOD movie, it's because he's working with a script strong enough to weather his style intact.
Quote:
(* Whether a director has a writing credit or not, I feel that all directors must have enough "story sense" to be able to communicate positively with their writing staff. Everything I've heard from behind-the-scenes says that Michael "What writer's strike?" Bay considers screenwriters to be little more than chimps with typewriters.)
Which is, sadly, an attitude quite prevalent in Hollywood. Even the most successful writers often get to see their scripts gutted by producers, development exectutives, directors, actors, and other writers--often including people who will never actually work on the finished product.
While I agree that they SHOULD have enough story sense, the sad truth is that sometimes the director will never even meet with the guy who wrote the story.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Case #10:
Waterworld
Apparent Causes of Suckitude-
A) A 'gill' man evolving in such a short time???
B) He can stand crazy underwater pressure, but can't bend puny bars???
C) A human chick CAN stand those crazy underwater pressures????
Analysis:
A-C: Silly silly British writers.
So, Waterworld makes The Postman look like Lawrence Of Arabia....
Next case?
The laughing Chrisisall
Seriously? You're not even trying anymore!
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Transformers
Apparent causes of Suckitude-
A) Visually incoherent.
B) Failed to make use of the source material.
C) What the Hell, Heroes?
As bad as the first one was, the sequel is such a festering pile of go se that it makes the first look like a classic.
Now those are bad sci-fi movies, not generally solid flicks with some flaws like... someone... is obsessing over. ;)
"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."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME