1billsfan Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 You missed my point completely. I was responding to a reference to Superman. I was trying to explain that a good author establishes the "rules" that apply to his imagined world (science ficton or fantasy) in order to make the story believable. I have not seen the movie, and was not criticizing it. I do not view movies with a slide rule and protractor (I use an abacus) but thanks for assuming I am that anal. 375674[/snapback] I just think that some people commenting on the film need to actually see it. They would know that these machines would not be able to come down in a lightning bolt (way to enormous in size), or that the reason they were sucking blood was that they seemed to be using us as some sort of fertilizer for the bloody vines (at least that's how I saw it). People are just so quick to make snap judgements on things they never saw. It annoyed me, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I just think that some people commenting on the film need to actually see it. They would know that these machines would not be able to come down in a lightning bolt (way to enormous in size), or that the reason they were sucking blood was that they seemed to be using us as some sort of fertilizer for the bloody vines (at least that's how I saw it). People are just so quick to make snap judgements on things they never saw. It annoyed me, that's all. 375697[/snapback] I assumed that was why you responded the way you did. I will see it; then I will have an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I assumed that was why you responded the way you did. I will see it; then I will have an opinion. 375701[/snapback] I look forward to hearing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I just think that some people commenting on the film need to actually see it. They would know that these machines would not be able to come down in a lightning bolt (way to enormous in size), or that the reason they were sucking blood was that they seemed to be using us as some sort of fertilizer for the bloody vines (at least that's how I saw it). People are just so quick to make snap judgements on things they never saw. It annoyed me, that's all. 375697[/snapback] I have seen the movie and have posted (in this thread) my major complaints. If you have time, do read that post and let me know why there is a logical explanation for any of the points I raise. To your current point about the use of blood, if I needed a captive source of fertilizer to engulf the planet with weeds, why would I first blow up so many fertilizer plants (humans) first ? I would destroy stuff around the fertilizer plants to establish my dominance and then start using the factories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I loved it until the last 5 minutes or so. Even with the flawed end, I still got my money's worth, thumbs up. Don't know why it wasn't filmed at 2.35:1 ratio, though... some of those shots were just screaming for a full-Scope presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I have seen the movie and have posted (in this thread) my major complaints. If you have time, do read that post and let me know why there is a logical explanation for any of the points I raise. To your current point about the use of blood, if I needed a captive source of fertilizer to engulf the planet with weeds, why would I first blow up so many fertilizer plants (humans) first ? I would destroy stuff around the fertilizer plants to establish my dominance and then start using the factories. 375721[/snapback] I'm guessing that was the shock-and-awe part of the attack. Once the planet was subdued they would then be able to harvest the rest. I do have some problems with the film, but I still thought it rated three out of four stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I still thought it rated three out of four stars. 375743[/snapback] Fair enough. For me, the plot holes were too wide and too many to enjoy the rest of the movie. Hence I would give it 2/4 *s. Of the popcorn flicks he has made, I think this is Spielberg's weakest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Fair enough. For me, the plot holes were too wide and too many to enjoy the rest of the movie. Hence I would give it 2/4 *s. Of the popcorn flicks he has made, I think this is Spielberg's weakest. 375774[/snapback] I agree this had to be Speilberg's weakest film. I was pretty disappoint. 1.5 stars out of four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Fair enough. For me, the plot holes were too wide and too many to enjoy the rest of the movie. Hence I would give it 2/4 *s. Of the popcorn flicks he has made, I think this is Spielberg's weakest. 375774[/snapback] I didn't like the Tim Robbins part nor the fluffy ending. The first hour was awesome though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I thought there were questions and gaps in the movie but I also thought it was a really good movie to just sit back and enjoy. The graphics were awesome........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoker2Buffalo Posted July 6, 2005 Author Share Posted July 6, 2005 I agree this had to be Speilberg's weakest film. 375785[/snapback] Ever seen Hook? Always? 1941? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoker2Buffalo Posted July 6, 2005 Author Share Posted July 6, 2005 I loved it until the last 5 minutes or so. Even with the flawed end, I still got my money's worth, thumbs up. Don't know why it wasn't filmed at 2.35:1 ratio, though... some of those shots were just screaming for a full-Scope presentation. 375737[/snapback] Spielberg has said 1.85:1 closely approximates how humans see things. That's why he likes it more than Panavision widescreen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Spielberg has said 1.85:1 closely approximates how humans see things. That's why he likes it more than Panavision widescreen. 375883[/snapback] But he recently shot Minority Report at 2:35:1., maybe even 2.4:1 or higher, seems pretty "WS" on my HDTV. Jaws, the Indiana Jones series, 1941, & Sugarland Express off the top of my head are others that he's shot at 2.35:1... go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 But he recently shot Minority Report at 2:35:1., maybe even 2.4:1 or higher, seems pretty "WS" on my HDTV. Jaws, the Indiana Jones series, 1941, & Sugarland Express off the top of my head are others that he's shot at 2.35:1... go figure. 375934[/snapback] So you are alive...been a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Ever seen Hook? Always? 1941? 375880[/snapback] Yep, and I enjoyed all three of them more than this. I think my issue is I was really looking forward to this movie only to be fed a B flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 So you are alive...been a while. 375946[/snapback] Yep, been down in Tuscaloosa, AL (it's launch support season ), GO TIDE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Yep, been down in Tuscaloosa, AL (it's launch support season ), GO TIDE! 375961[/snapback] I know the area well...lived off my Alabama (B'ham) relatives for almost a year in the early 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I didn't like the Tim Robbins part nor the fluffy ending. The first hour was awesome though. 375805[/snapback] Did Robbins die a painful, fiery death? If he did, I'd actually have reason to watch the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I'd be happier watching Fletch for the 98th time rather than waste my time watching a movie with that lunatic Tom Cruise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Good science fiction begins with good science. Good fantasy begins by defining the "scientific" laws of the fantasy realm, and having your characters function within the laws you establish (which is why I, Robot was disappointing). ... HG Wells was a scientist. The original term science fiction was coined (I believe) by Hugo Gernsback in the 1920's, and was an abbreviated form of scientific fiction. OK, now back to everyone's rants. WOTW could not have been butchered worse than Wells' Food of the Gods or the more recent The Time Machine. 375067[/snapback] Close, Rock - Gernsback called it "scientifiction"; John W. Campbell, Jr. is more closely associated with "science fiction". And some people I used to know even got downright surly about the use of "sci-fi", since the correct abbreviation is SF.... (source: English 191, "History of Science Fiction"; Pennsylvania State University, Spring 1987. Here, meet my prof.) If/when I see this movie, I won't expect it to live up to Wells' original vision... but I won't take it to task for a mere change of venue, either. (After all, Orson Welles relocated it to New Jersey a long time ago.) What I will expect is something that approximates the spirit of HGW's work - if Spielberg gets that right, the film will be worth watching. (That's why the previews of I, Robot were enough to convince me to stay far away - 30 seconds of footage was more than enough to tell me it was no longer Asimov's story...) PS: Thanks for the link to the WKBW version, Tom - I've been wanting to get my hands on that for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts