|
Author
|
Topic: Ok Ok I was wrong. Mission to Mars REALLY sucked.
|
yodadude
|
posted 03-13-2000 08:15 PM
a while back I started a thread titled MISSION TO MARS LOOKS GREAT. I was all excited bout this pic. Boy was I wrong. It majorly sucked and blew at the same time. I could barely stay awake. If I wanted to see 2001 i would have saved $5 and stayed home and watched my special edition of the Kubric classic.Avoid this movie. Man DePalma sucks! Agree? Disagree? pleasse ingadge in conversation. |
sparkybus
|
posted 03-13-2000 10:45 PM
hmm...didnt i say depalma was ripping kubirck off? its 2001 meets apollo 13...cept it not as good as either. depalms isnt a gifted director...hes just a guy with one or two hits that hes milkin for all theyre worth. sorry..u lose depalma...------------------
"to be, or not to be? ...not to be!"
-Last Action Hero
|
seejay
|
posted 03-14-2000 01:26 AM
Alright, I have not seen Mission to Mars- but for gods sake, watch what you say about a director as savy as DePalma. You have no personal knowledge of the shooting conditions of the Mars set. I do in fact know that the script did end up going through about six or seven different writers, one of the common downfalls of Hollywood to which many a film suffer. Another thing to keep in mind is that every director has their stinkbomb. Hitchcock had several- anyone see Lifeboat or heard of his unfortunate french period? DePalma may not be the most talented director working, but he is a major force to be studied. Compare Carrie to Hitchcocks style. My favorite homage of his was the bus station scene in The Untouchables to the Oddessa step sequence in Battleship Potemkin. He is also responsible for the finest example of stedicam in the 90's (Snake Eyes).------------------
Galactic Empire Films |
Hardcore Moose
|
posted 03-14-2000 02:35 AM
Okay, I'll give DePalma credit for Carrie and The Untouchables; those two films are classics. Many of his other films are watchable (even Snake Eyes, despite Nick Cage's over the top acting). But don't fall prey to the steadicam thing; it's a neat visual trick, but is, unfortunately, indicative of one of DePalma's major shortcomings: Style over Substance. |
BIG JIM SLATE
|
posted 03-14-2000 04:53 AM
Good try Brien DePalma, but as I said many times before, THERE WAS ALREADY A MOVIE LIKE THAT RELEASED!!! It was 2001 (one of my favorites) and it was much better than your "remake".------------------
"V is for victory! Go tell your friends!" |
Pyromaniac
|
posted 03-14-2000 06:49 AM
I haven't seen it yet but would you suggest that I should or shouldn't see it? It won't put a hole in my wallet, I got a season pass. I thought 2001 was a very artistic endeavor with a confusing plot. One thing I don't like about these modern pics is that there geared to close ups, I'm talking so close that there face fills the frame and I
HATE it. I liked Kubrick for his use of master shots. These movies like Supernova preyed on CU's that I felt REALLY SUCKED. USE THEM SPARINGLY DAMN YOU! I've seen every Kubrick film except Eyes Wide Shut, again should I see that one? [This message has been edited by Pyromaniac (edited 03-14-2000).] |
BDS
|
posted 03-14-2000 10:19 AM
Well Battlefield Earth looks good,And the sci-fi Cartoon,with Drew B looks very good.------------------
Brenda The Producer,BDS Co.,Di4465,35mm or Bust.You can do anything |
seejay
|
posted 03-14-2000 01:24 PM
Moose-
I'm not "falling prey to that stedicam thing". I only called the Snake Eyes "the finest example of stedi cam work in the 90's"- which it is. If you want to dispute that fine. However I make no claims in regard to substance. In addition substance is a much bigger word than some people here think it is. A working director in Hollywood, is not all controlling and all seeing. He is a artist forced into niches. Sure Brian could have left Mission to Mars, but then he goes by with out being paid. Like I said before several writers are more likely to be the problem with substance not Brian. If you want to look at bad directors- look for acting, look for visual design of sets and look for emotion. Storyline can be affected by director, but most of that responsibility lies in the hands of the writer.------------------
Galactic Empire Films [This message has been edited by seejay (edited 03-14-2000).] |
sgt.barnes
|
posted 03-14-2000 02:59 PM
definitely a combo of apollo, 2001, and don't forget contact, had some of that weird crap, the one thing that i thought was cool was the way they filmed the redness, it gave a good look to the film, but the thing i hated most is that the real plot of the film was five minutes at the end, and it wasn't nearly as creepy or scary as i expected. but i might have expected wrong, it was PG afterall. the acting wasn't bad either. It wasn't a great movie but i think it was worth seeing.------------------
everyman dies, not everyman really lives |
Gator Graphics
|
posted 03-14-2000 04:07 PM
Ok Ok Ok ok , i saw it , and personaly I thought the movie ruled. I mean , there was a little bad acting but thats it. I mean the line about it being impossiable was GREAT. so I don't know what you guys are talking about. Also dose anyone here know how to use net Meeting ,i ahve been trying to get to work with my video phone and it won't do it
!!! |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-14-2000 05:41 PM
Captains Log - supplement:I'm gonig to go see it in 45 minutes. Wish me luck. I'll report my personal findings and viewpoints later. ------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
BIG JIM SLATE
|
posted 03-14-2000 06:00 PM
GatorGraphics: What are YOU talking about??? It was okay in almost all aspects EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IS A COPY OF 2001!!!! I didn't hate it, but if I knew it would've been so similar, I would've stayed home and watched the real deal on my home theater.------------------
"V is for victory! Go tell your friends!" |
Film Boy
|
posted 03-14-2000 08:59 PM
I liked it all except for the alien and the abrupt ending. |
yodadude
|
posted 03-14-2000 09:07 PM
I hated the ending. I was hoping it would let the viewer decide wheter it was aliens or not that created man. I cracked up laughing when the alien appeared and then laughed louder when it shed a single tear just like the indian in that don't litter commerical. I wanted more exploring of the ending and aliens. I also hoped it would be more creapy. And where did that damn rock/bullet come from? The one that shot Jerry O'connel in the hand. |
Pyromaniac
|
posted 03-14-2000 09:20 PM
Speaking of copycat movies, this upcoming movie U-571 or whatever it's called looked strikingly similar to Das Boot in the preview. I plan on seeing M2M this weekend, that is if no one gives it away. I went to go see The Sixth Sense and this dude runs to the front aisle and yells out "Bruce Willis is really a ghost!" I went and saw Pitch Black and just when it was about to go full eclipse the film melted in the projector. |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-14-2000 09:36 PM
Warning, this is kinda a spoiler: Though I see that others have already written spoilers too.Yes it was an attempted copy of 2001 a space oddessyand contact, but it was moe like contact. My biggest problem with the film was t's lack of a deeper meaning. It made no commentay on the meanig of life or the future of mankind o the price of gas. It was just what you saw and nothing more And that made it boring. I remembe reaing not one but two eviews where DePalma was quoted as saying with this film he wanted to do something neve seen before in sci-fi. But we all saw in the peviews the clea 2001 a space oddessy rip offs and the plotline of aliens making life on earth was a star trek episode. and a bad one at that. 2001 a space oddessy was in fact an oddessy that explored the nature of evolution and the possibility that evolutionay steps wee triggered by an outside force during developmental beaking points. Can humans become gods when they create machines moe human than themselves? That's a film where students wil be studying and considering meanings well into the next century. Alas M2M will be forgotten by next year The film is laced with chaacters who do things for no reason what so eve including this dumb@$$ alien race. You need to evacuate your planet, right? Earth is nice and green and habitable.. no waitlets go to anothe sola system but before we go we'll start life on earth then invite em over fo a BBQ. When I move I don't even leave a change of address form at the post office. Another problem was the build up. Big evalations should have big foreshadowing and big build up. I watched. Evey big revalation came only with at most 2 minutes build up. Good for Jerry Springer, but learning the origin of man isn't in the same league as leaning your girlfiend is cheating on you with her sister and their dog. Yes, the alien looked dumb. Yes the script was awful, not to be unexpected when it went through 10 writers. Yes, the martian lanscape looked moe eal than the crappy CGI on titanic Whoopie. Hey, guys... Why didn't someone try and grab something so we humans could have some of that cool technology? Oh wait, the only things these aliens had on humans were great 3d accelerator cards and faster than light ships that can't fly in a straight line They wobble. Oh and of course there's nothing to salvage in the end. Yay, no sequel. Mission to Mars Too! ------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
yodadude
|
posted 03-15-2000 12:48 AM
EXCELLENT post dude! That is everything I felt about the film but didn't know how to put into words. You hit the 2001 thing right on the head! I would type more but the monolith is sending out loud ear splitting sounds right now! (or at least it is on my TV)  |
Skagnetti
|
posted 03-15-2000 08:44 AM
I wouldn't call it a 2001 ripoff at all. I see the Apollo 13 rip, but I'd call it more of an Abyss ripoff in the end. ------------------
Some fellas are lucky and some ain't. |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-15-2000 09:49 AM
Not to be arguementative, but to say this isn't a 2001 ripoff means you haven't seen 2001 recently enough. The whole white room set was a HUGE borrowing from 2001. Also the spaceship physics which can't be helped because 2001s theory of artificial gravity is pretty much the most realistic hypothesis there is. Then there was the tense 'I have no ship to call my home' space walk. Et cetera.Another thing bothers me about M2M. Okay, so you need to pass their little test to egt into the structure (big silver face) on cedonia. Okay the first guys failed the test so it up and killed them. But it also displaced it's hidden covering of sand and rock and crap. That's okay, maybe it wasn't hidden in the first place, they couldn't assume that erosion would work in such a way. But there it is, exposed and huge and silver. Earth bound telescopes have been able to see the surface of mars quite clearly for about... 500 years. Getting better by the decade. Why didn't the dumb@$$es at NASA see the huge silver object shaped like a head where the huge red object shaped like a ehad used to be? Wouldn't that be good intel for the rescue mission that took almost a year to get there? There are scenes where NASA is bumbling about analyzing the data and can't figure out what's wrong, we'll get back to ya. Hey! Maybe it has something to do with the big head! ------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
Mr. Hutt
|
posted 03-15-2000 12:05 PM
I'm really enjoying this topic because I haven't seen this movie and I have NO idea what you're talking about.  ("And remember the part where the giant silver arm grabs the guy and rips his head off bcause he was sitting in the white room and eating frozen yogurt at the time..") [This message has been edited by Mr. Hutt (edited 03-15-2000).] |
BIG JIM SLATE
|
posted 03-15-2000 06:32 PM
NASA found out that the "face" was nothing more than a trick of shadow of light. Closer analysis shows that it is nothing more than a pule of sand.
OR AT LEAST IT IS WHAT THE ALIENS WANT US TO THINK!!!!
LONG LIVE DALE!!!
LONG LIVE DALE!!!
LONG LIVE DALE!!!
SHRIMP GIVES ME GAS!!!
LONG LIVE DALE!!!
LONG LIVE DALE!!!
LONG LIVE DALE!!!:-P ------------------
"V is for victory! Go tell your friends!" |
ZIMZAM
|
posted 03-15-2000 07:18 PM
Sucked Arse!!! That alien looked like something out of 1988. |
Sloan
|
posted 03-15-2000 07:54 PM
somthing from 1988 would look better than that alien, it looked like it was made in 19,234,034 B.C.------------------
http://go.to/jacksloan "...Nothing really matters,
Anyone can see,
Nothing really matters-,nothing really matters to me..." Queen- Bohemian Rhapsody
|
Sluggo
|
posted 03-15-2000 08:00 PM
I think most of you will agree that there is a difference between a good movie and an entertaining movie. Some good movies are also entertaining, but very few entertaining movies are also good. Have you seen any of the oscar movies? Most of the oscar movies are dull things that involve gay people sitting around talking for 3 hours about how they have such a hard life. I have not seen mission to mars, but it looks like a very entertaining movie. Im not saying it's gonna be a good movie with superb acting or whatever tha academy looks for, im saying it looks like it will be a fun entertaining movie. ------------------
"Trying is the first step towards failure."--Homer Simpson
|
crazy lou
|
posted 03-16-2000 02:09 AM
ok folks, here it comes something to make you see past the surface(or at least the ones of you who do that)1. cydonia-the face, the pyramids(that weren't anywhere to be seen) has been photographed at least 2 times (that we "little folk" know about) and NASA chose to land there, but if you look at the satelite pics the base camp is like 1000 miles south of there. Hmmm 2. nobody really has any concern that they're going to land at cydonia? come on! its the most controversial area on mars beating out those damn canals, and nobody really cares? 3. one guy on a space station is calling all the shots? 4. Luke can't talk to his son for the entire time he's gone...in the real world NASA makes every effort to get the families involved. 5. the alien (which wasn't a real alien, it was most likely a hologram, i mean how long ago did life appear on the earth if it was indeed "seeded" like the movie implies 6. the german guy calling the shots has a patch that says "wSS" 7. the computer has a voice recognition override on it? why 8 nobody really seems concerned about how to break this to anyone, because they won't ever have to...
...this was a secret mission to mars!!!
I liked it better then 2001 for the most part, except for the score. some of the effects in this movie were pretty crappy, and when you think of it, for a $150 million dollar movie, did anyone see that in this...at most i saw 70 mil. tops. Also this movie was supposed listed as being 2hours 45 min, but it was under 2 hours...where's the rest of that? Anyone thing NASA who had script approval had anything to do with the all the missing stuff?
My 2 cents
later
Tom
PS this should be in the community center
PPSS the "thing" that hit jerry in the hand was a meteroid, they are common in space, satelites in earth orbit have been hit as many as 6000 times an hour, shredding solar panels, and considering they travel beyond hypersonic speeds, it is very possible that what happened could have actually happened.
one more thing...they have now moved up the date that we'll be going to mars. it used to be 30 years, but now its within 10-20 years. make syou wonder if we haven't already been there with something we found out in the desert in like '47?
[This message has been edited by crazy lou (edited 03-16-2000).] |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-16-2000 10:07 AM
I actually am entertained by a good movie. If a movie is entertaining I think it's good. Mission 2 Mars was not the worst movie of all time or even the worst movie of this year or this month or even this week. From a special effects stand point, the mars sets and effects were very very good. I couldn't point anything out that I could say "How Fake". The effects in the alien hologram area seemd to have been thrown together in a quick 5 minutes on a desktop PC with 3D studio max. If one of us here did that we'd cream our pants, but they did it for 2 million dollars for the 7 minute sequence. That just blows. Also considering that the revalation is in fact supposed to be the most important part of the movie. A friend and I are planning a quick short sci fi film for a a festival held here in new york every april. We have the concept and the protaganist, now we need to solidify the story. This is how I feel. Everytime we speak or type a sentance we begin doing so with the desire to communicate a complete thought to another by the time the last word is spoken. Each word in that sentance is chosen to support the next toward that end. Any words that confuse the final intention are wasteful. The same goes for writing a story or a novel but on a much larger scale than a single sentance. Instead of breaking down the elements to a word for word level we look at a story by the sentances that are combined to communicate a message to the readers. And toward that end I feel that film making follows the same rules. When you watch my film I want you to get my communicated message. The elements of this message are made up of dialogue, visuals, special effects, musical score, other sound elements, et cetera. So we look at Mission 2 Mars, and we wonder, do we know what Brian DePalma was trying to tell us? Probably. It's simple like a childrens book about a dog named spot. See Spot run. Run spot run. Message 1. Some martians had to flee mars but hey they like to spread seed about, and like a deadbeat dad they don't leave much of anything behind but they do invite ya over for tea when you're old enough to drive. Who knows how many planets they decided to populate along their trip. Okay, now we know, what now? What are the implications to the world? Brian Depalma didn't seem to care. Ahh message #2. Confucious says; "Big effects mean big wad of cash in Disney and DePalmas pockets". 2001 was a far more complex message. Whether that's better or not is relative to our individual tastes. I prefer a conversation witha friend in which I have to think. A deep conversation that can be two parts philosphical and two parts logical and one part humor. hmmm. ------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
Subject Zero
|
posted 03-16-2000 06:45 PM
SZ says: "Stupid alien looked like it belonged in Fantasia"If you think about it, cut ALL of the alien crap out of that movie and it would have been a pretty good movie. I watched 3/4's of it going "This is pretty good" until they slap you in the face with that alien nonsense. It just seems to magically transform into a completely different movie at that point, a bad one. A REALLY bad one. And was it even neccesary to tell us "The End"? SZ |
doom1701
|
posted 03-17-2000 10:29 AM
Yeah, this isn't the place to post it, but I had to talk a little about this, since I finally saw it last night. (SPOILERS AHEAD!)Single sentence summary: Not bad, but kinda lame. Come on, raise your hands if you didn't realize that either Tim Robbins or his wife would die. And I've got to agree with Frank--how is it that NASA, while launching the first ever mission to another planet, didn't notice that a huge silver face has suddenly appeared on that planet? Not to mention that "mission control" seemed to be just a little room on the "World Space Station" (well, it's no better than the "Russian Space Station" from Armageddon--what happened; is the name "Mir" copyrighted or something?), and nobody else seemed to care. We landed on another planet, for God's sakes, and we can't even show the first guy setting foot in the sand? And, quite frankly, the effects sucked. I didn't even think the martian landscape was that great (after all, it was just filmed in the desert, and everything was shifted red in post). The space shots left me wishing for the days of models again; very few CGI shots give the "solid" feeling that model shots always gave. And one other note; any time that you have to resort to a flashback of a chunk of the movie that happened 1/2 hour previous, you didn't do a good job telling your story. ------------------
TL
daa Productions Nobody lives forever, so you might as well go out with a good caffeine buzz... There's always hope, because it's the one thing that they haven't figured out how to kill yet... |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-17-2000 10:42 AM
Actually I think this is the right forum to discuss this movie. Though the effects of the movie were not discussed in detail this is after all an effects driven movie which interest all of us intwerested in special effects. Every so often (about twice a week) an effects driven film hits the theaters with a weak plot and nasty @$$ed writing and we're reminded that special effects enhance a strong story and a weak story stiffle fantastic effects. Oh the scene where a whirl wind kills some astronauts was beatiful, but we lost focus on that because the headaches of a dumb story overshadowed it. Mission 2 Mars. A cautionary tale to those who will inherit hollywood in the not to very distant future.------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
ZIMZAM
|
posted 03-17-2000 07:51 PM
Question: How do you have so many good actors in a movie, and it ends up so bad? Answer:The script and the direction. When watching the first 15 minutes of this movie, I could feel them trying to pound in all of the backstory, so we the viewers, would identify and feel compassion for the characters when they later get into "troublesome" situations. I HATE THAT. There are better ways to make people care about your character than having one of them have a recently deceased wife that everyone loved... bla bla bla... I know that studios, directors, and producers hold most of the American public in a position of contempt, but come on. Take the time in the writing process, to develop an origional backstory, then go from there. Also, what's with movies ending with "THE END"? Is that so we know when to leave? Like people would just not know when the movie ended, and they would stay in the theater for weeks. I thought this was something people put on cheesy home movies, or bad horror flicks, not multi-million dollar Hollywood films. Just my two cents. P.S. I did like the scene with Tim Robbins dying. It was visually something I've never seen before, so that was good. But that was it. |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-18-2000 08:50 AM
I was wondering about the Tim Robbins dieing scene. Would he instantly freeze like that? Or would he implode from the pressure as soon as the seal was broken?------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
sparkybus
|
posted 03-18-2000 10:42 AM
hmm...thats a good one. i dunno...logic would suggest that robbins would implode into gooey mush...but since the movie was made to accomodate the youngsters, i think they figured freezing him was just as cool. im pretty sure if they wanted to be technical about it, he would have imploded. hehe...total recall anyone? when i first saw that movie, i wanted to cry...at the time the effect where they were caught on mars's atmosphere was so cool. and can anyone say "better movie"? paul verhoeven is a great director...and if u look past the immediate action and adventure in total recall, its actually one of the best sci-fi flicks ever, written the electric sheep-dreaming master himself, philip k. dick...whos more famous work includes books such as "do andriods dream of electric sheep?"...otherwise known as blade runner...and now "the impostor" with gary sinise is coming out...which is also based on a PKD book. oh...and at the end of M2M, i think they added in "the end" because they felt they had completed such an "epic" (cough) film, that "the end" was justified in closing their epic masterpiece(of crap).
------------------
"to be, or not to be? ...not to be!"
-Last Action Hero
|
JMB1138
|
posted 03-18-2000 12:30 PM
Why would he implode? There's no pressure in space, if anything he would explode. Spacesuits are pressurized because of the lack of pressure in space. Space is a vacuum. There's nothing there. |
SeerSavant
|
posted 03-18-2000 01:39 PM
Ahh, ferget Mission To Mars. It's a Depalma flick. We go to see it because, well let's face it, there are far worse movies out there. Depalma may not be a Kubric or a Ridley Scott, but his films are an entertaining way to blow a couple of hours. 'Sides, he may create another untouchables. I mean, really bad directors (Those that have seemingly bottomless budgets given to them despite their records) occasionally crank out a great film.
Example? Jon DeBont, Speed 2 sucked, but remember, He also did Twister, which blew me outta my seat. Great flick. As far as scifi this year; If you wanna go to mars, try Red Planet. But if you wanna see a kick butt sci fi flick, my moneys on Battlefield Earth. |
Jay Sims
|
posted 03-18-2000 05:36 PM
There is a basic truth that I have learned as a playwright. Most of the time when a story is written, it is written to introduce an idea. In this case the whole martian thing. But in order to keep an audience interested in the idea, you have to throw in a whole bunch of conflict along the way. The problem with this film is that it was nothing but an action pact movie with conflict 3/4 of the way. Then all of sudden this idea is introduced with very little planting or foreshadowing. The little back story and history the characters had didn't seem to be enough to motivate them. So overall an audiene member is going to walk away thinking "What the hell?" |
spishack
|
posted 03-18-2000 06:30 PM
Actually, he wouldn't explode, his blood would boil and he would then implode.------------------
gaRRett muRRay
film major - fairleigh dickinson university |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-19-2000 11:10 AM
I don't have high hopes fo battle Field Earth. I think pitch black was it. Great writing, great acting from unkown actors with great effects from a medium budget. Most of the alien landscape effects were done "in camera" And it looked great. I think Battlefield earth will suffer the budget and egos and personalities that most high budget effects driven films will. I'd love to be wrong here, but i saw the previews. I think it;s always better in most cases to have lower expectations then be pleasantly surprised.------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
SeerSavant
|
posted 03-19-2000 11:35 AM
Pitch Black was a great flick, but I have to disagree about Battlefield Earth. Having read the book and being a L.Ron Hubbard fan, I felt that his books were all too large to make a film, but I think this movie may be the one. It's only going to use the first third of the book so the story shouldn't be as sketchy as say, the Stand (THough a good flick, simply too much story to put on the screen, even at six hours plus)
As far as budget, ???, Battlefield Earth is around 50 million, how much did M2M get? We can't even say that much of that money is going to the 'stars'. Only three are 'name' stars, one is new; Barry Pepper, the praying sniper from Saving private Ryan, Forrest Whittaker, and John Travolta (Who is the executive producer and being a scientologist will take extra care of an L.Ron Hubbard script better than most.)
The director is Roger Christian, who cut his teeth from the three star wars films, (Which also suffered from a meager budget, at least for what it showed.) Lucas even gave him a glowing recommendation to the production. Check out the latest Cinescape for a good article.
I rarely ever push for a movie I have not seen yet, but this one feels like it could be the best bet this year.
But I could be wrong, I do admit it, but I doubt that I am.------------------
Hence, loathed Melancholy,
Of Cerberus, and blackest Midnight born,
In Stygian cave forlorn,
'Mongst horrid shapes, and shrieks, and sights unholy.
-- L'Allegro, John Milton |
Damn Smooth
|
posted 03-19-2000 02:40 PM
I saw the film this weekend too, and I have to say that it wasn't that bad. Sure it could have been better, but it wasn't as terrible as some of you have made it out to be.But I have to agree with you all on one front; the film is DEFINETLY 2001 meets Apollo 13. And Brian De Palma does NOT suck. He is a great director, and he said something once that I will never forget "The camera lies 24 times a second". He direction on this film was great. I enjoyed it a lot. The only thing was that I found it a little too cerebral at the end, and all of the scenes with Kim Delaney were completely unnecasary, and could have been done away with. Personally I think that is worth a look, but don't expect a masterpiece. ------------------
If at first you don't succeed, cheat. Repeat until caught, then lie. - Mark Hedge, Chairman - Happy Ninja Productions.
|
yodadude
|
posted 03-19-2000 02:55 PM
I know for a fact that Battlefield Earth budget is over 75 million. This film dose not look that great to me. John Travolta as a alien who has dredlocks and is 12 feet tall? I don;t think so! The only thing that might save BE is its director. He did a great job on all the SW films he did, and learned from the master of space epics himself. Lucas. The story sounds good, but I am sure we will just get another Godzilla instead of another Star Wars or Jurassic Park.This year there will be no good sifi. YOu can quote me on that. If I were you I would hold out till next year when FELLOWSHIP OF THE RINGS comes then a year later when StarWARS EP II hits theaters with all its glory! [This message has been edited by yodadude (edited 03-19-2000).] |
Pyromaniac
|
posted 03-19-2000 03:00 PM
I saw it last night and I thought it wasn't that bad, I was actually intrigued and on the edge of my seat for the most part. Some of the audience got so involved that they tried to save Tim Robbins from being burnt in
Mars and they were going "No, don't do it!," when he took his helmet off. That one scene generated a lot of audience reaction that I haven't seen in a long time. I also thought Gary and the alien was repeating the ending of Close Encounters. That german dude was like Truffoat and Sinise was Neary. I did, however, love the anti gravity scenes. That was a work of art. |
Morpheos7
|
posted 03-19-2000 05:08 PM
I've read this whole post now and I noticed someone saying something about a crash out in the desert in '47. You're probally talking about the Roswell crash. Just so you know I live in Roswell New Mexico and there ain't nothing here! |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-19-2000 10:20 PM
Funny, i thought the end wasn't cerebreal enough. Outright brainless. For example. So the aliens left mars and headed off to a distant solar system, the hologram depicts them leaving some dNA on earth and triggering life. While we're watching this hologram we hear gary translatining it for everyone in the audience that has an IQ under 24. I hate when directors feel the need to dumb down their movie to make it accessable to hillbillies or whomever they underestimate. That was actually my least favorite aspect of psycho. We watched norman bates dress like his mom, pleade to his mom, kill several people then find his moms corpse. We know he's a nut who has an oedipal complex among other issues, did we really need a shrink to come out in the end and summarise the movie? Tonight I saw the talented Mr. Ripley and Eye of the Beholder. In the first I felt the writing and acting were supurb. They didn't try too very hard to have us understand why Matt Damons character was so extreme in his pathology. The story let us think and ponder to our own conclusions. I love thinking!!! They eye of the beholder had some explanations in the narrative but they took their time and didn't smack the audience in the face with it. We are smart, we can figure some things out on our own. I think the zero grav scenes in 2001 were better. There was more time dedicated to the sense of time in space. You felt as though everything was slower. It takes 170 days to fly to jupiter, in 2001 they main characters showed what it's like to be confined with another person for that long. Run out of things t talk about, get sick of looking at them. That's why submarine crews are only allowed to be under for 1-3 months. To keep a healthy mental disposition. M2M ignored that time factor in space travel with a wee subtitle: "170 days later". An of course they're all gosh darned happy to be around each other. I can't even take a road trip without an arguement with my GF. But hey, maybe those aren't important to the story. Why be ultra realistic if it detracts from the story? Someone made a fine point ealier that Tim Robbins freezed dried cause really a messy implosion would make it less accessable to a younger audience, and it probably wouldn't have added to the story. I recall a movie from the 80's called "Outland" starring sean connery. Some guy tried to take a space walk without his suit. He imploded before the airlock could be done with the depressurisation sequence. It was quite messy and realistic, though wouldn't suit a heroic death in Tim Robbins case. Event Horizon had a great scene like that too. Battle Field earth may be dummied down for two hours thus making it crap. I remembering being excited to see the movie "star gate". I was ultimately dissapointe because it was rushed thus rendered to be crap. I think it should have been a trilogy. One two hour movie about the finding and deciphering oh the way to open the gate, the gate opens and all hell breaks loose when bad dudes come through to earth. Movie two coule be when we send troops through the stargate and fine some pretty bad sh!t going on there. Along the way someone SLOWLY figures out how to speak a language that's been; #1 dead for 5000 years on earth #2 undergone alot of vocabulary changes for 5000 years on another freaking planet. Movie three, our boys help start a revolution that kiss the bad muthas over there. Happy ending. Those of you who read battlefield earth, is 90 minutes to 2 hours enough to tell the story and it not be rushed? Be honest. Most studios aren't willing to dedicate themselves to a trilogy, too much of a risk financially. Everyone is out for the quick buck which I think explains M2Ms final product more than anything else. But it can still be done even in the 21st century. Hey, the Matrix is going to be trilogy! Pay attention hollywood. You can take your time and construct a story properly. ------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
Pyromaniac
|
posted 03-19-2000 10:46 PM
I agree with you, Frank. Movies shouldn't be explained to the audience before they've had a chance to think about it. That's why I liked Kubrick's style of "shoot first, ask questions later." I really didn't understand 2001 until I watched M2M. I think they made the movie on the spot after he died. The ZG in 2001 was definately awesome but I don't think a great effect like that should end with one movie. What part I don't get about M2M was when the mars cyclone sucked up the astronauts in the beginning. After all, wasn't that the work of the loan alien. How could those other astronauts have trusted it after doing that. The fact is, if they hadn't made 2001, there wouldn't be an M2M.
I've been waiting for the day when they would show bleeding in space, I can recall a nightmare I had when I was very small. My blood was sucked through a hole in space and I remember the tremendous jerk when I was next. My point is that movies beget movies and also instill things in you whether it be a fond memory or a dream. |
That Guy
|
posted 03-19-2000 11:18 PM
I just saw M2M two hours ago. I thought it was okay, there wasn't much development in the story about the "secret" of Mars, which I think is why the writers dumbed it down at the end. The alien was stupid, several people burst out laughing. There was a big reaction to Tim Robbin's death, though.
I hated the way the camera would pan in close shots, it has an unprofessional look and is hell on some people's eyes.
I read somewhere that if you were in space without a protective suit, half of your body would fry in the heat of the sun, and the other half would freeze.
Well, that is the bane of we filmmakers, who think much too deeply into films than we were meant to. |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-21-2000 01:55 PM
I know i must seem a bit obsessive, but soemthing in the movie bugs me. There's a scene where Jerry O'Connel is playing with M&Ms (product placement) in zero grav. He arranges the colours in a double helix which spins about as he adds more pieces of candy. He kidna puts them in and starts them on their orbit while maintaining the double helix shape. Now for there to be a continuous orbit there needs to be a central mass for which the M&Ms to revolve around, right? You can't just let an M&M loose and space, put a little spin on it and expect it to maintain that curve. It will go forward until it is met by a force that can cause it to curve. Right?------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
crazy lou
|
posted 03-21-2000 07:05 PM
Morpheos7, of course there's nothing there, its in nevada right now. WHY DOES EVERYONE KEEP SAYING IT WAS A REAL FREAKIN' ALIEN? WHY? the race of martians that "seeded" earth would have had to leave that planet millions of years ago, sure it could have been frozen or something, but i highly doubt it. i recommend that the people who are so anti-alien, M2M bashers go out and read the book that inspired this film (yeah, i'm sure 2001 played a part too) "The Monuments of Mars: a city on the edge of forever" by richard c hoagland http://www.enterprisemission.com/timemag.html later
Tom
the matrix should, like most good movies, not be subjected to the horror of a sequel.
|
crazy lou
|
posted 03-21-2000 07:18 PM
yodadude, i've got my fingers crossd for X-men as this years big sci-fi film. after the "JAR-JAR" movie, i shudder to think about the next star wars, i think that too will be a big let down. I like the overall look of Ep 1, but there was way too much stuff that looked like it was done on a home computer, like the red ship at the end, you clearly see a poorly built 3d mesh, with a bump map, then a much better lower part and ramp when the characters walk out of it...no excuse for that but laziness. dewbacks that dont leave footprints? whats that about?
sorry feeling confrontational lately
later
Tom
|
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-21-2000 09:06 PM
Crazy Lou, we all know it was a hologram, but the race was so advanced that it made holograms you can touch, something tells me they could make it so the hologram looks like them, and damnit it looked stupid. Also I too considered the whole aspect of them being about when the earth was frozen, but we were lucky, they had the hologram to tell the whole story. At the start of the hologram there was not one but two blue planets in the solar system. Earth and Mars. Mars gets hit by a comet and becomes the red planet it is now. As all the martains leave one ship flies to the OTHER blue planet and deposits some DNA. By the narrative of the movie both planets were blue from oceans with clouds and able to support life.I am sure the book is great, but good movies don't need you to read a book to like them. The exorcist I thought was a great book, and I loved the movie for 10 years before reading the book and liking the book too. If the book is that much better and more logical then thats anothe reason why the movie is a failure. ------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
That Guy
|
posted 03-21-2000 09:47 PM
Yes, the M&M's need a centripetal force acting on them to undergo circular motion. |
yodadude
|
posted 03-22-2000 12:31 AM
The Jar Jar show? Just the mindless complaints from a cocky filmmaker who can't for the life of him begin to understand the importance of The Phantom Menace in the Star Wars saga!Mark my word you SW bashers, EPII will knock your socks off and make you leave the theater hiding your pee soked pants.(yes it'll be that good) Sorry, but you have to learn not to mess with YODAdude! Also I think if there was a hole in a spaceship the atmoshpere would be sucked out quicker and the ship would be crushed in a matter of seconds. Am I correct. You bash Lucas know but if he were here you would totally be kissin' his a$$ and you know it! [This message has been edited by yodadude (edited 03-22-2000).] |
crazy lou
|
posted 03-22-2000 01:01 AM
"Just the mindless complaints from a cocky filmmaker who can't for the life of him begin to understand the importance of The Phantom Menace in the Star Wars saga!"
i completely understand the impotance of EP1 "JarJar":TPM. It was supposed to represent the "good times" when stupid CGI characters were roaming the lands free and unburdoned, able to perform stupid acts where ever they pleased, to jump 20 feet in the air, even though their bodies couldn't possibly function that way! The only real "importance" of EP1 was to promote crappy effects and rekindle sales of a movie that was falling to the wayside with today's children, the TRUE star wars trilogy. An expensive piece of eyecandy that i saw opening night, after driving 2 hours from school with a nutcase who wouldn't shut up (dont even think of it, i know what you're all thinking)
The fact is the movie did have its strengths and weaknesses, in all aspects, but the effects left many unimpressed and disenfrachised. After seeing it, i now aim my sights MUCH lower, and shudder to think what EP2 "the jedi love flick" will be like
I doubt i'd be kissing anyone's booty, unless it was the queen's, but i think i could go to jail for that... ...BUT this is about M2M, which i liked, it had both good and bad, along with the creators approval (apparently) and designs, that team seemed to like an alien that looked different, and no where near as stupid as JarJar, otherwise they wouldn't have made it that way, right?
BTW, what race is yoda from? and why could you fit something the size of a finger under his eyelids in EP1, but not in 5&6? sloppy job yoda guys
later
a mindless cocky filmmaker  ?
Tom
------------------
What everyone seems to forget is that once we look past race, religion, gender, and all that, everyone on this planet is first and foremost...
...a PERSON
|
Gamecat
|
posted 03-22-2000 01:50 AM
Hey know what I thought was funny about mission to mars? The fact that it seemed to be almost dead on to nasa's current ability to get to mars... We keep smashin the ships up thats a joke btw, I for one wish the government would increase the nasa budget and get our asses off this planet a little quicker |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-22-2000 09:55 AM
This is the first string that I've seen which has gone for two pages. I'm sure there've been others but this is my first. I'm going to take this time to discuss what I actually liked about M2M... The previews were great! I was highly in anticipation of this film. The concept was great. The website was cool. I like Tim Robbins. I met him once and he'sa nice guy. Very tall. Gary Sinese looks like he'd eb a nice guy too. I'd love to meet him but not in the basement of a crack house. Jerry O'Connel needs better roles for his talent. Red is my favorite colour. Nice space ships.
------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
doom1701
|
posted 03-22-2000 11:10 AM
OK, I have to ask about the impode/explode/blood boiling bit. I'm sure this has an fx tie in somewhere...Here's the deal. The lower the air pressure, the lower the boiling point of a liquid. That's why it's easier to cook Mac&Cheese in Colorado than it is here. In a 0psi environment (space), any temp above absolute zero would be the boiling point for any liquid. This is because there is no pressure to "hold the liquid together"--all the molecules would just vibrate apart from each other, forming a gas. So, let me put this into perspective with M2M: Scenario 1: the Dr. Pepper in the air leak. When the pop left the ship, it should not have frozen. As a liquid, it would have boiled away as the pressure dropped. So why do we have an icicle? Scenario 2: Tim Robbin's overdone death sequence. The human body is full of liquid. As any of that liquid is exposed to a vacuum (Say, you open your mouth or don't plug your nose), that liquid will boil. When a liquid boils, and turns to gas, it expands, causing a great deal more pressure. So, a human body thrown into space should explode. Perhaps, if you plugged every orifice, your skin may provide enough pressurization inside your body to cause everything to freeze. That's actually one of my major gripes about 2001 (that, and the funky ending)--when Bowman entered the airlock without his helmet, they made it look like all he had to do was hold his breath. Total Recall (I think) had this right on--they didn't instantly explode because of the limited air pressure on Mars, but they almost did... Someone please correct any inaccuracies that I may have; my physics class in high school was taught by a criminal (no, not just a bad teacher, but an honest to god criminal), so I will glady accept any corrections... ------------------
TL
daa Productions Nobody lives forever, so you might as well go out with a good caffeine buzz... There's always hope, because it's the one thing that they haven't figured out how to kill yet... |
Frank Milne
|
posted 03-22-2000 11:11 PM
I'm not sure your logic is valid. We know tht liquids can be frozen in space because the trail of a comet is actually ice. most of it at least.------------------
"I like to see things as I remember them, not as they were." -Bill Pullman "Lost Highway" |
crazy lou
|
posted 03-22-2000 11:28 PM
wouldn't the frozen/boil thing come down to how close it was to a star? the "light side" of an object is bombarded with radiation, but the "dark side" is almost absoulute zero, or if not its still damn cold. this would cause the DP to either freeze or rapidly disperse, so while a comet would have a tail, its only when it gets near enough to a star that we can see the tail as the ice vaporizes, right?so its possible that both can exist, just at different times and circumstances
i liked the freezing scene, but i hardly think an astronaut would do what he did. that kind of possible behavior is extensively screened out, suicidal behavior is not what NASA's about, and before somebody gets on my case, its those type of freak occasions that cause that behavior to be screened for...
i still like the movie, it was entertaining, and therefore it was a good movie. it is entertainment, thats why we go see it.
later
Tom
| |
