Graphics Horse
Member
Is the world ready for the Passion of the Christ: Engineer edition?
The Martian almost feels like a fluke. Let's look at his output in the last few years:
The Martian
Exodus: Gods and Kings
The Counsellor
Prometheus
Robin Hood
I never found Alien scary either and I watched it for the first time when I was like 10. I don't care if the movie is scary, I just want it to be a good movie.Looks alright.
This will certainly look amazing, uncertain about how engaging it'll end up being.
Do people honestly feel fear from watching any of that? I don't get how, non of that seemed the least bit frightening.
I don't know how Villeneuve can keep it ambiguous for Deckard to be a replicant when 2049 is long after the first movie.I can be glad this movie exists because Dennis freaking Villeneuve is directing Blade Runner 2049 at least, instead of Scott. And has even confirmed he's keeping it ambiguous.
That was over a decade ago though.Don't ignore Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut), it's one of his best work.
You didn't. You're asking us questions about a movie you haven't seen. How do you expect us to answer? You haven't explained how it sounds bad, you just asked a bunch of questions based on spoilers to a movie you haven't seen.
You can "win" by stating why you feel the idea is bad, like what everyone asked.
Example:
"I think this is bad because it does not fit this, this and this"
Or
"I do not like this concept being explored because this, this and this and I'd prefer this direction as it's more interesting"
It's not hard.
Meh, can easily write it away with longer, aging replicants or some bsI don't know how Villeneuve can keep it ambiguous for Deckard to be a replicant when 2049 is long after the first movie.
I don't know how Villeneuve can keep it ambiguous for Deckard to be a replicant when 2049 is long after the first movie.
Don't ignore Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut), it's one of his best work.
Looks like Prometheus 2.
Don't ignore Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut), it's one of his best work.
That's not explaining why the concept or idea itself is bad, and at this point it's clear you don't have any actual intention to.Except, I provided that in my wrap up paragraph where I compared the original movies to the recent tied movies. Specifically, the simplicity of the originals and the alleged "mystery" of Space Jockey as opposed the now complicated origins of everything that carry with them zero social message, as far as I'm concerned.
And let's not forget he made the misguided decision of butchering his own movie.
Are you serious?Woman made to look like Ripley.
No significant cast beyond Fassbender.
'Movie' looks made for TV.
:/
You sure it wasn't the studio that forced his hand? Just like they forced changes and voice overs for Blade Runner theatrical cut?
You sure it wasn't the studio that forced his hand? Just like they forced changes and voice overs for Blade Runner theatrical cut?
Are you serious?
First of all how do you expect actors to get more exposure and become fassbender level of they're not given the opportunity to do so in films? How do you think he got where he is?
How does the film look "made for TV"? This isn't even a criticism like the cinematography is poor, you don't like the direction, etc. It's just a stupid comment.
I'm not saying it doesn't, but I'm talking about the lesser known actors he's complaining about.The movie has Danny McBride and James Franco, it has some star power
Woman made to look like Ripley.
No significant cast beyond Fassbender.
'Movie' looks made for TV.
:/
Which is crazy because the entire notion of that narrative thrust sprang out of a throwaway joke in Spaiht's script that he took literally. Like, there was a character in one draft who introduced the concept solely to mock it, and then Scott seized on it, and now it's basically the overarching theme of his Alien Prequel Trilogy.
Which will, again, likely end with the giant-size Engineer with a hole in his chest on LV-426 being David.
'Movie' looks made for TV.
'Movie' looks made for TV.
:/
This criticism doesn't hold much water now considering we have shows like Game of Thrones, True Detective, Sherlock, and Mad Men showing you can TV shows almost indistinguishable from movies.
He is a man with a mind from a different time, and also made a movie about Columbus being a great guy (the real version being a raging psychopath who also started the genocide of the native American tribes), so him wanting a 'religious' viewpoint is not that surprising.
Unfortunately, he has all the skill for making movies, but you could say he hasn't been "with it" for a while already. It's less obvious with him than with Bridge of Spies though, where it hit me that I was watching a movie structure that has gone out of style. At least Scott has to be commended on his ability to adapt to changing studio conditions and environment. He has definitely managed to avoid becoming sidelined, which is impressive in itself.
Also, I was sadly not impressed with The Martian either. Primarily because the book made its character be smart by having them do and explain smart things. Much like a Crighton novel, making the reader feel smarter for getting something is part of the appeal of a pure sci-fi novel. When shit becomes too muddled in vagueness, it becomes fantasy.
But in the movie, we saw the camera looking at people supposedly saying a lot of smart things, but we never got the feel that that was the case. Or that there was a genuine discovery to things. I'm not sure why exactly it felt that way, but that's what it felt like. Maybe it couldn't give the viewer time to work it out and had to move too quickly from one thing to another, maybe it was too obsessed with being a comedy, but I felt disappointed by it, despite the only thing I was looking forward to as a sci-fi movie.
Since then, I have been much more pleasantly surprised by The Expanse, and presumably Arrival, but I haven't seen that movie yet.
The Martian was also super crowded with big league actors where half of them felt like they had asked to be on it because they liked the novel, but sooo many fucking characters worked to its detriment. I mean: Kirsten Wiig. She was in this. Does anyone even remember her character? Don't cheat and google it, just admit you don't remember, because why would you ("you" as in people in general, not Bobby specific btw).
Alright. LEAKED SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This rant about the Martian is total pretentious bullshit
You sure it wasn't the studio that forced his hand? Just like they forced changes and voice overs for Blade Runner theatrical cut?
It's what it felt like to me, and I didn't want to look up the review I wrote for it in the 'movies you watched' topic. It felt off to me, and that's what I thought was causing it.
If you disagree with that, you're free to clarify that too you know. Please proceed, governor.
Yes, but also the start of a new trilogy.I haven't been following any of this... is this a sequel to Prometheus?
So it's all still a prequel to Alien?Yes, but also the start of a new trilogy.
So engineers not in the movie?? I wanna know about them, looks like a huge letdown if true.
Except, I provided that in my wrap up paragraph where I compared the original movies to the recent tied movies. Specifically, the simplicity of the originals and the alleged "mystery" of Space Jockey as opposed the now complicated origins of everything that carry with them zero social message, as far as I'm concerned.
It didn't but it didn't try to, that's what they were saying.What social message did the OG film carry?
Yea I'm in the same boat. If I wanted just Alien, I'd watch Alien. Personally more interested in the world expanding and universal origin mythology