- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: After giving Promet[h]eus a shot on cable
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:43 pm to DelU249
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:43 pm to DelU249
quote:
Seriously? Everyone has done that at some point. It even worked on my Xbox 360 quite a few times.
So because they act like real people with real things, and that makes it science fiction? Or because technology isn't perfect, that makes it relatable, therefore science fiction?
I am so confused by your definition....
1
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:43 pm to JS87
quote:
and how both girls insisted on running a straight line to escape
Well they are women...
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:45 pm to DelU249
quote:
I say that because I can't reconcile hating Prometheus and liking JC. I'm actually just shocked someone likes JC
Prometheus gets plenty of hate, I know I'm not alone by any stretch.
quote:
I'm actually just shocked someone likes JC
And almost everyone who sees it, especially after hearing that it's pretty good, enjoys the film.
There are probably way more Prometheus haters than JC haters actually.
I have no idea what you expected with that movie, it delivered on what it set out to do. That's more than I can say about Prometheus.
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:48 pm to DelU249
This might seem crazy or just plain stupid to you, but I do not consider Star Wars science fiction. It is a fantasy story that happens to take place in space.
This is a fair description of what science fiction should be imo.
In the earlier stages of science fiction(1920's-1940's), the genre was about a hopeful view of what the future would bring in general, with some examples that contained warnings inspired by the two world wars. As time went on, science fiction turned darker predominently with dystopian works such as 1984, Brave New World, etc.
It is still generally about speculation of how humanity or humans would react given some change of circumstance or circumstances. I have never been huge into Star Trek, but the impression that I have is that Star Trek does this mostly through technology.
quote:
Science Fiction is particular in that it has to make OUR world seem familiar and new at the time by allowing for some specific element( or elements) to change it.
This is a fair description of what science fiction should be imo.
In the earlier stages of science fiction(1920's-1940's), the genre was about a hopeful view of what the future would bring in general, with some examples that contained warnings inspired by the two world wars. As time went on, science fiction turned darker predominently with dystopian works such as 1984, Brave New World, etc.
It is still generally about speculation of how humanity or humans would react given some change of circumstance or circumstances. I have never been huge into Star Trek, but the impression that I have is that Star Trek does this mostly through technology.
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:49 pm to Freauxzen
Usually in science fiction you have these things
1. The future
2. Space exploration
3. Radical technology
4. Time travel
When being presented with such fantastic and generally unrealistic/unbelievable things, you need to keep a connection with the audience. I'm just assuming everyone likes to project themselves into the movie. Tiny (and yes that is one instance of 5 million) things like that make it easier to relate to the characters. In sci fi I think you need to go out of your way to do this because its not so natural. Spaceships, aliens, radical technology, time travel, you can't hold a connection to the audience unless they find what's happening on screen relatable to their lives or existence and it's easy to forget about this kind of stuff because the characters are not interacting with anything that is real.
1. The future
2. Space exploration
3. Radical technology
4. Time travel
When being presented with such fantastic and generally unrealistic/unbelievable things, you need to keep a connection with the audience. I'm just assuming everyone likes to project themselves into the movie. Tiny (and yes that is one instance of 5 million) things like that make it easier to relate to the characters. In sci fi I think you need to go out of your way to do this because its not so natural. Spaceships, aliens, radical technology, time travel, you can't hold a connection to the audience unless they find what's happening on screen relatable to their lives or existence and it's easy to forget about this kind of stuff because the characters are not interacting with anything that is real.
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:50 pm to Freauxzen
quote:it's the same as tapping on a gauge to make it work or banging on a car dashboard to make it start. it is relatable to people of the late 70's and 80's that would do this to substandard electronics and mechanical devices of the time.
Why is Han banging his hand on the pamel relatable to the time and planet?
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:50 pm to Peazey
It's not but as far as movie going audiences and studios are concerned it is. At heart it is adventure and fantasy but you do have all of the present elements of sci fi, anyway I was just usin that as an example
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:52 pm to DelU249
quote:infallible future tech in movies has it's place but not if you want the audience to really connect to it.
Spaceships, aliens, radical technology, time travel, you can't hold a connection to the audience unless they find what's happening on screen relatable to their lives or existence and it's easy to forget about this kind of stuff because the characters are not interacting with anything that is real.
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:57 pm to DelU249
quote:
Usually in science fiction you have these things
1. The future
2. Space exploration
3. Radical technology
4. Time travel
And there's your problem. Superficial science fiction is nothing. Just because a film has spaceships doesn't necessarily make it a science fiction film.
quote:
When being presented with such fantastic and generally unrealistic/unbelievable things, you need to keep a connection with the audience. I'm just assuming everyone likes to project themselves into the movie. Tiny (and yes that is one instance of 5 million) things like that make it easier to relate to the characters. In sci fi I think you need to go out of your way to do this because its not so natural. Spaceships, aliens, radical technology, time travel, you can't hold a connection to the audience unless they find what's happening on screen relatable to their lives or existence and it's easy to forget about this kind of stuff because the characters are not interacting with anything that is real.
You do realize the best modern science fiction film is probably Children of Men right?
That's about as grounded in reality as you can get and STILL manages to create a world and ask (and answer) massive questions about it.
Posted on 4/10/13 at 3:58 pm to Peazey
quote:
This might seem crazy or just plain stupid to you, but I do not consider Star Wars science fiction. It is a fantasy story that happens to take place in space.
It isn't crazy, and it probably isn't fantasy either. But it's closer to fantasy than science fiction, that's for sure.
Posted on 4/10/13 at 4:00 pm to Freauxzen
Add to my list "Dystopian future" or "alternate reality". You can think that's a superficial description but over 95% of sci fi movies have one if not most of those elements.
And we're talking about a movie with aliens in space in the future with crazy technology. Ok, Prometheus sucks and isn't sci fi. Well people were excited because the director previously directed a movie with an alien in space in the future with crazy technology.
And we're talking about a movie with aliens in space in the future with crazy technology. Ok, Prometheus sucks and isn't sci fi. Well people were excited because the director previously directed a movie with an alien in space in the future with crazy technology.
This post was edited on 4/10/13 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 4/10/13 at 4:05 pm to Freauxzen
what did JC set out to do. Iit completely lacks ambition so therefore it's good? I cannot stress how bad the leading actors are, how fricking stupid everything looks, how nothing about the characters are relatable, how fricking boring and nonsensical everything is... It is a turd top to bottomPosted on 4/10/13 at 4:11 pm to DelU249
quote:
Add to my list "Dystopian future" or "alternate reality". You can think that's a superficial description but over 95% of sci fi movies have one if not most of those elements.
Because, generally, science fiction is about the far future so those are easy markers. They don't MAKE a science fiction film though. They are a consequence of predicting the future in general.
Scanners? Children of Men? Videodrome? The Running Man? Minority Report? The list goes on with films and properties that don't have any of the above.
Sure they are the future (if like 30 years is the future), but that's about it.
quote:
And we're talking about a movie with aliens in space in the future with crazy technology. Ok, Prometheus sucks and isn't sci fi.
What? Prometheus is clearly science fiction, it just isn't a good one. I never said it wasn't. Again, it was your comment about the liking of John Carter as an invalidated opinion on science fiction.
This post was edited on 4/10/13 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 4/10/13 at 4:16 pm to Freauxzen
How the frick did this devolve into a John Carter v. Prometheus thread? I'm nearly as disappointed as I was after my first viewing of Prometheus.
Posted on 4/10/13 at 4:20 pm to DelU249
quote:
what did JC set out to do. Iit completely lacks ambition so therefore it's good?
No one said that.
quote:
I cannot stress how bad the leading actors are
Collins was solid. Strong chewed it up well. Kitsch and McNulty were serviceable. Believable enough to serve their purpose. There are worse acting gigs out there.
quote:
how fricking stupid everything looks,
It's not Prometheus sure, but it's supposed to look a little cheesy. Its roots are in pulp adventures of the 1920's. If you made John Carter look like Prometheus...well that's a different movie entirely.
quote:
how nothing about the characters are relatable
It's a simple hero tale, and it's supposed to be.
quote:
how fricking boring and nonsensical everything is
Like what?
quote:
It is a turd top to bottom
Eh, either your expectations are off or you just don't like movies that are built to:
1. Reflect their roots exactly
2. Built on the old model of heroism
3. Just be plain fun
Like I said in the other thread, it's not a movie for film snobs, or "high-minded" film buffs. It's not even a movie for general movie-going audiences.
It was a movie built for people who enjoy the classicism behind adventure and the battle of good and evil. It's out of place for sure, most people are too jaded to enjoy it. It's not gritty and "Real," enough, but it isn't supposed to be.
In fact, John Carter is the antithesis of modern Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan. That's probably why you didn't like it.
Posted on 4/10/13 at 4:20 pm to Freauxzen
You're really stuck on that? It's just to point out that people like this turd and hate Prometheus. In no way is John carter better than Prometheus. You want to talk about confusing? JC is a simple story but it gets so bogged down because you don't understand ANY of the details simply because of the language. Jar thar thyack Brock. It's stupid, and doesn't connect with the audience. I could've maybe liked this if just those things were done differently (the source material wasn't all that well known, should've changed it) but then you throw in all if the other stuff and you have a movie I fricking hate with a passion /rant
Posted on 4/10/13 at 4:22 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
It's not Prometheus sure, but it's supposed to look a little cheesy. Its roots are in pulp adventures of the 1920's. If you made John Carter look like Prometheus...well that's a different movie entirely.
Actually I think JC would've looked better if it weren't made to be so epic. Like I said its a pretty simple story.
quote:
It's out of place for sure,
that was a positive. the only one for me
quote:
most people are too jaded to enjoy it. It's not gritty and "Real," enough, but it isn't supposed to be.
See I feel like sci fi completely lacks grit nowadays. With all of this digital filmmaking bullshite, everything is so neat and sterile and thus BORING
This post was edited on 4/10/13 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 4/10/13 at 4:23 pm to Freauxzen
i kept thinking "Got Dammit. A whole planet of Jar Jars"
Posted on 4/10/13 at 4:27 pm to DelU249
quote:
You're really stuck on that?
Not really, just answering your questions.
quote:
It's just to point out that people like this turd and hate Prometheus.
I hate Prometheus because I love the originals so much (mostly the first 3). Scott shite on those. Maybe not like Lucas did on Indiana, but enough for Prometheus itself to be a giant turd.
He really needed to decide whether to:
1. Make an Alien prequel
2. Make a new film
He did both and neither and that really affected the output. And you can tell.
quote:
In no way is John carter better than Prometheus.
Depends on what you mean, but it sure was WAY more satisfying. I felt cheated with Prometheus.
But if we're talking like production value or set direction, sure there's an argument.
quote:
JC is a simple story but it gets so bogged down because you don't understand ANY of the details simply because of the language. Jar thar thyack Brock.
I don't think following the story was that hard?
quote:
It's stupid, and doesn't connect with the audience. I could've maybe liked this if just those things were done differently (the source material wasn't all that well known, should've changed it) but then you throw in all if the other stuff and you have a movie I fricking hate with a passion /rant
Agree to disagree.
And like I said, I think there are more Prometheus haters (and more who have seen it) than there are JC haters. Mostly because Prometheus brought with it certain expectations that were not met in any form.
JC didn't have that burden.
Posted on 4/10/13 at 4:28 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Like what?
Like everything. I got so bogged down with who is who and what is what (the language) I don't understand why JC and this count are climbing a rock with these aliens shooting at them. Really I just remember the opening sequence (it looked like a final fantasy game), and the ending (not a bad twist)
Everything else was poor acting, cgi and fricking confusing tharjacktarbeen language.
Page 8 of 13
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News