This was a reply to a YouTube video comment post I wrote a couple weeks ago.
This post discusses the differences in how the black goo in "Prometheus" affected Holloway (compared to Fifield).
The thing with Holloway was, that IMO, he was actually disintegrating in a manner similar to the Engineer in the early scene of "Prometheus", because Holloway ingested black goo, which was beyond simple (well...) skin contact, and the goo began doing its intended work on disintegrating Holloway's DNA. But the black goo did so at a much slower pace, because Holloway had ingested less than a drop mixed into fizzy wine, while the early Engineer ingested a mouthful.
Note, that the sacrificial Engineer then fell into a river of water, which apparently quickly stabilised the resulting DNA strands, that went on to mix, match and become a source of all life on Earth.
And because the dosage of black goo in Holloway was small, and the effect slow, he managed to pass some already-randomised / –transmogrified DNA into Shaw. The rest, in terms of "Prometheus", is history.
Another theory is, that everything the black goo affects, makes transformed life extremely aggressive, and always with a need to procreate, seed, and spread themselves around, case in point being hammerpedes.
End of comment.
More theories from here on.
The thing about the black goo is, that it's probably a baseline material for creating xenomorphs, as evidenced by the very xenomorph-like silhouette / relief embedded in the wall or ceiling inside the (compromised) black goo repository on LV-223.
Though I do not know, why or what has lead the black goo to be like that. Theories abound...
So, my theory is, that the black goo is blood harvested by Engineers from a species older and higher-order than even the Engineers themselves.
Assuming, that this is true, then "Prometheus" offers at least a couple hints to this; one being, that this even older species was in the beginning scenes of "Prometheus"; the other is, that the head in the Engineer laboratory is the dead head of a representative of that higher-order species. And the black goo was then harvested from the head and body of the higher-order/older species. (To me, the black goo is not Engineer blood.)
What may probably run counter to that, is that the xenomorph-like relief in the wall/ceiling is actually a Xenomorph trapped. It might be live, or might not, or might be in stasis instead. Think of Han Solo frozen in Carbonite.
Now, the head of the higher-order-species appears to have been housed in the Engineer laboratory dome—or the dome laboratory was built around the head. The Engineer ships were located inside and around the dome. The rest of the body was apparently kept buried underground, until the Engineers discovered it and surveyed the dead body... for something useful.
The dangerous nature of the black goo is, because it's the blood of a dead higher-order humanoid species. The blood of such a live person would have different and hopefully more benign properties than the blood of a dead person.
As it is in real life, then in time, dead organic matter begins to disintegrate and becomes increasingly dangerous to health.
This may have been cause for religious rules that require respect for the dead and prohibit disturbing the grave.
All this is just theories, hypotheses, and speculation for your reading enjoyment.
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga movies. Kuva kõik postitused
Kuvatud on postitused sildiga movies. Kuva kõik postitused
teisipäev, 7. märts 2017
pühapäev, 21. juuni 2015
How we remember a movie
In reply to this post on IMDb
I've never seen the original Jurassic Park film at the cinema, so I think I finally saw it on tv once. But then seeing that film turned out to be such a non-event, that I probably forgot that I ever saw it whole, and so mostly remember getting to see it in parts in my old home. It's as if seeing the original did not make any impression on me. Except "It's a UNIX system! I know this!".
I kinda think that this may be related to how one watches films, and whether it's alone or with someone, and then also where and in which setting. When I see a particular film or documentary at home, then I take the time to watch it, and invest the necessary mental resources to think along.
Another interesting point is whether I've consumed any similar [visual] content on the same day: Of the two movies I might have seen in a day, which one of these will I remember seeing? Will I remember one or the other, or the one I saw later?
I've never seen the original Jurassic Park film at the cinema, so I think I finally saw it on tv once. But then seeing that film turned out to be such a non-event, that I probably forgot that I ever saw it whole, and so mostly remember getting to see it in parts in my old home. It's as if seeing the original did not make any impression on me. Except "It's a UNIX system! I know this!".
I kinda think that this may be related to how one watches films, and whether it's alone or with someone, and then also where and in which setting. When I see a particular film or documentary at home, then I take the time to watch it, and invest the necessary mental resources to think along.
Another interesting point is whether I've consumed any similar [visual] content on the same day: Of the two movies I might have seen in a day, which one of these will I remember seeing? Will I remember one or the other, or the one I saw later?
laupäev, 23. august 2014
Recent superhero science fiction movies
This is a comment I wrote on a busy IMDb forum. Posted it first in an IMDb forum, but this is backup, because after a certain threshold, IMDb forum threads get deleted.
Late 1990s was the period of huge disaster movies, starting with "Twister" and "Independence Day" in 1996; then in the one year of 1998 two huge asteroid disaster movies, which were "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon". 1997 gave us "Event Horizon". Of all these, ID4, "Deep Impact" and "Event Horizon" might have aged better, IMO. Though "Armageddon" had a bigger production, more star power (back then), and an awesome theme song.
Now, I think at some point we're going to reach, or have already reached Peak Superhero Movie, aka the point when all recent Superhero movies end up with the one that jumps the shark on them all.
Because Ant-Man is in production.
The current Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles release had extensive advertising, but the problem is that I don't like them all that much, even from the trailers. I think I liked the old Turtles movies better, if only because they were more fun and the turtles' prosthetics seemed to have appeared more natural, even if from a production standpoint they might have looked fake. And I was a kid back then.
I have not seen Iron Man movies. I remember I really liked the 1990s cartoons.
This Summer I saw "Transformers: Age of Extinction". Ugh. But it got huge, because it was one of the few Hollywood flicks this year permitted to be screened in China, to which they paid huge lip service in the very movie.
Man of Steel was allowed the previous year. It also gets extra props for awesome eye candy :9
The Turtles and Transformers are basically kiddie movies. Iron Man is teenage material, and Man of Steel for teenagers and young adults. So are "Star Trek 2009" and "Star Trek Into Darkness", both mindless sci-fi action flicks.
Whereas "Lucy" is rated R (haven't seen it yet).
All in all, I'll give Iron Man the benefit of the doubt. Star Trek reboots were rather successful, and Man of Steel is a very nice Superman reboot (I'll forgive camcorder zoom-ins).
The real science fiction goodies were "Prometheus" and "Gravity", of which I haven't seen either.
Late 1990s was the period of huge disaster movies, starting with "Twister" and "Independence Day" in 1996; then in the one year of 1998 two huge asteroid disaster movies, which were "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon". 1997 gave us "Event Horizon". Of all these, ID4, "Deep Impact" and "Event Horizon" might have aged better, IMO. Though "Armageddon" had a bigger production, more star power (back then), and an awesome theme song.
Now, I think at some point we're going to reach, or have already reached Peak Superhero Movie, aka the point when all recent Superhero movies end up with the one that jumps the shark on them all.
Because Ant-Man is in production.
The current Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles release had extensive advertising, but the problem is that I don't like them all that much, even from the trailers. I think I liked the old Turtles movies better, if only because they were more fun and the turtles' prosthetics seemed to have appeared more natural, even if from a production standpoint they might have looked fake. And I was a kid back then.
I have not seen Iron Man movies. I remember I really liked the 1990s cartoons.
This Summer I saw "Transformers: Age of Extinction". Ugh. But it got huge, because it was one of the few Hollywood flicks this year permitted to be screened in China, to which they paid huge lip service in the very movie.
Man of Steel was allowed the previous year. It also gets extra props for awesome eye candy :9
The Turtles and Transformers are basically kiddie movies. Iron Man is teenage material, and Man of Steel for teenagers and young adults. So are "Star Trek 2009" and "Star Trek Into Darkness", both mindless sci-fi action flicks.
Whereas "Lucy" is rated R (haven't seen it yet).
All in all, I'll give Iron Man the benefit of the doubt. Star Trek reboots were rather successful, and Man of Steel is a very nice Superman reboot (I'll forgive camcorder zoom-ins).
The real science fiction goodies were "Prometheus" and "Gravity", of which I haven't seen either.
kolmapäev, 26. juuni 2013
Independence Day 2. What might have happened in-between
This was in reply to a similar post in IMDb, a post which speculated on what might have happened in the 15-odd years on Earth since the events set in "Independence Day" (1996). Because IMDb forums for a movie or personality are cleaned up from time to time, I've decided to simultaneously publish this here along with the reply on IMDb.
Disclaimer: This blogpost does not contain spoilers to the movie, because I am not aware of its actual content.
My favourite ideas revolve around relations between humans and surviving aliens from the first war.
Of the surviving party (parties), there would be at least two or three 'factions', put this way:
* Those that want to destroy humanity and much of Earth and reconnect with whatever future mothership comes. These would be fighters and their ilk (the alien hard-liners);
* Those who somehow automagically decide that humans are worth something, too, and the Earth preserving.
* And maybe those that kinda-sorta like Earth, but not humans, only that they can't do much about it. The undecided (?).
It's possible that maybe one of the city-ships somehow survived to the point that it's established a state-like territory on its own, but that the ship itself is unable to become airborne. Maybe there are more than one and each has formed a different faction and attitude towards Earth and humanity.
Then the structure of the alien society: What was it like before, during, and after the invasion?
Then the very serious problems around whether and how to integrate surviving aliens into society (à la "Alien Nation", but it wouldn't work out like that anyway) — Because if we're better than them, then we can't just kill them all off. I'm aware it's very pacifist and stuff.
And then about how humans treat or mistreat the surviving aliens — look at Guantánamo; and would there even be trials? Does the whole species need to be convicted, or just the ones who set the agenda? How do you find out the surviving alien leaders (given that they all seem to look alike), and whether there are any, if the social structure and ways of communication are so different?
It's likely that humans and (former) invaders would mostly feel mutually repelled by one another and keep up some form of segregation ("District 9"). Would be interesting to know if that's in the new movie.
Then all the issues wrt biocontamination. Organic as they all are, there must be observable changes in Earth's nature. Did the first strikes also hit nuclear plants and was there any fallout and thus any possibility of a nuclear winter? Then I'd imagine the use of cars with internal combustion engines has perhaps lessened alot first due to destruction of major population centres and because of new technology.
The idea of a third and fourth species is also very intersting, given that a large explosion in space can be noticed by a civilization with at least similar advancement.
Oh, the "Pocahontas" scenario of two kindred spirits meeting one another would never work. No, no. But I wouldn't rule out several accidental hybrids. There's a possibility that if some alien surviors managed to form a workable faction within the confines of their previous social structure, then they might have made several experiments with human survivors until releasing one or more, or even a group of human-alien hybrids. And I suppose those in turn would have very dangerous properties. Maybe alien-human infiltrators.
Then what has happened to different human societies on Earth. Suppose some states rebuild and develop military technology, but at the cost of freedom. Some countries decide to keep individual freedoms, but maybe or maybe not risk being less secure. Or countries who decide not to adopt alien technologies and develop native technologies (Not Invented Here syndrome), or countries that don't want to sacrifice freedoms and develop slower and on their own pace compared to those that might sacrifice freedoms and might want to adopt all the latest alien tech.
Disclaimer: This blogpost does not contain spoilers to the movie, because I am not aware of its actual content.
My favourite ideas revolve around relations between humans and surviving aliens from the first war.
Of the surviving party (parties), there would be at least two or three 'factions', put this way:
* Those that want to destroy humanity and much of Earth and reconnect with whatever future mothership comes. These would be fighters and their ilk (the alien hard-liners);
* Those who somehow automagically decide that humans are worth something, too, and the Earth preserving.
* And maybe those that kinda-sorta like Earth, but not humans, only that they can't do much about it. The undecided (?).
It's possible that maybe one of the city-ships somehow survived to the point that it's established a state-like territory on its own, but that the ship itself is unable to become airborne. Maybe there are more than one and each has formed a different faction and attitude towards Earth and humanity.
Then the structure of the alien society: What was it like before, during, and after the invasion?
Then the very serious problems around whether and how to integrate surviving aliens into society (à la "Alien Nation", but it wouldn't work out like that anyway) — Because if we're better than them, then we can't just kill them all off. I'm aware it's very pacifist and stuff.
And then about how humans treat or mistreat the surviving aliens — look at Guantánamo; and would there even be trials? Does the whole species need to be convicted, or just the ones who set the agenda? How do you find out the surviving alien leaders (given that they all seem to look alike), and whether there are any, if the social structure and ways of communication are so different?
It's likely that humans and (former) invaders would mostly feel mutually repelled by one another and keep up some form of segregation ("District 9"). Would be interesting to know if that's in the new movie.
Then all the issues wrt biocontamination. Organic as they all are, there must be observable changes in Earth's nature. Did the first strikes also hit nuclear plants and was there any fallout and thus any possibility of a nuclear winter? Then I'd imagine the use of cars with internal combustion engines has perhaps lessened alot first due to destruction of major population centres and because of new technology.
The idea of a third and fourth species is also very intersting, given that a large explosion in space can be noticed by a civilization with at least similar advancement.
Oh, the "Pocahontas" scenario of two kindred spirits meeting one another would never work. No, no. But I wouldn't rule out several accidental hybrids. There's a possibility that if some alien surviors managed to form a workable faction within the confines of their previous social structure, then they might have made several experiments with human survivors until releasing one or more, or even a group of human-alien hybrids. And I suppose those in turn would have very dangerous properties. Maybe alien-human infiltrators.
Then what has happened to different human societies on Earth. Suppose some states rebuild and develop military technology, but at the cost of freedom. Some countries decide to keep individual freedoms, but maybe or maybe not risk being less secure. Or countries who decide not to adopt alien technologies and develop native technologies (Not Invented Here syndrome), or countries that don't want to sacrifice freedoms and develop slower and on their own pace compared to those that might sacrifice freedoms and might want to adopt all the latest alien tech.
neljapäev, 29. november 2012
What went wrong with Star Trek: Nemesis
This is in reply to a post on IMDb's Stuart Baird forum thread regarding what his input was to "Star Trek: Nemesis". The advantage to this post here is that threads on IMDb get sometimes deleted as a matter of cleanup, and I can also edit this one here for further comment.
It is soon almost ten years since the film was released, well past the 2009 "Star Trek" movie directed by J.J. Abrams, and I am making my review only now.
The post herein lists some of the things I thought went wrong with making Star Trek: Nemesis and contains an opinion about the stuff that I would have made.
Indeed, it is yet another and one of many posts that list the things that were and went wrong with Nemesis. Many people, of course, do vouch to be the expert storymaker and director after a flop, yet hindsight also gives us the opportunity not to repeat the mistakes and do things better.
So, for starters, I noted a poster there was actally correct in terms of who actually ran the show, and I made a conclusion:
All in all, it was a confluence of bad calls and decisions:
* John Logan is an awesome team writer. With him doing a solo job on Nemesis, the studio should have assigned someone to take a critical look at the script before it was put into production.
The Reman storyline was ok, though fairly one-sided, as it is. I would have never allowed such a terrible name as "Shinzon". Pieces of "B4" on another planet was also a great idea, but I would have certainly scrapped the car chase for better VFX, and perhaps given the non-space-faring planet a greater role in the dispute over Scimitar the ship and weapon of mass destruction.
* Tom Hardy is a really nice actor and played his bit with vengeance. I can't really see how the appearance of his face is in any way similar to that of Patrick Stewart. Hardy also has really luscious lips :-9
* Stuart Baird is an accomplished film editor, but his directorial effort is something right out of "An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn".
The more I thought of it, the more I realized that the Nemesis directing situation was almost exactly out of Burn Hollywood, where an editor by trade becomes the director (I admit I haven't seen Burn Hollywood properly, but I'm sure the situation described has happened aplenty in this industry) and is hostage to the whims of the producer, in addition getting into conflict with the actors and everyone else involved. btw, Burn, Hollywood has Whoopi Goldberg in it <:
And one more thing: "Skyfall" has John Logan as one of the writers and Stuart Baird as the editor. Skyfall has raked in a gross of almost $800 million dollars worldwide.
I believe the TNG cast still deserves another movie, one that has a polished script for starters, and preferably with Denise Crosby in it as the wily Sela. But the clock is ticking.
It is soon almost ten years since the film was released, well past the 2009 "Star Trek" movie directed by J.J. Abrams, and I am making my review only now.
The post herein lists some of the things I thought went wrong with making Star Trek: Nemesis and contains an opinion about the stuff that I would have made.
Indeed, it is yet another and one of many posts that list the things that were and went wrong with Nemesis. Many people, of course, do vouch to be the expert storymaker and director after a flop, yet hindsight also gives us the opportunity not to repeat the mistakes and do things better.
So, for starters, I noted a poster there was actally correct in terms of who actually ran the show, and I made a conclusion:
All in all, it was a confluence of bad calls and decisions:
* John Logan is an awesome team writer. With him doing a solo job on Nemesis, the studio should have assigned someone to take a critical look at the script before it was put into production.
The Reman storyline was ok, though fairly one-sided, as it is. I would have never allowed such a terrible name as "Shinzon". Pieces of "B4" on another planet was also a great idea, but I would have certainly scrapped the car chase for better VFX, and perhaps given the non-space-faring planet a greater role in the dispute over Scimitar the ship and weapon of mass destruction.
* Tom Hardy is a really nice actor and played his bit with vengeance. I can't really see how the appearance of his face is in any way similar to that of Patrick Stewart. Hardy also has really luscious lips :-9
* Stuart Baird is an accomplished film editor, but his directorial effort is something right out of "An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn".
The more I thought of it, the more I realized that the Nemesis directing situation was almost exactly out of Burn Hollywood, where an editor by trade becomes the director (I admit I haven't seen Burn Hollywood properly, but I'm sure the situation described has happened aplenty in this industry) and is hostage to the whims of the producer, in addition getting into conflict with the actors and everyone else involved. btw, Burn, Hollywood has Whoopi Goldberg in it <:
And one more thing: "Skyfall" has John Logan as one of the writers and Stuart Baird as the editor. Skyfall has raked in a gross of almost $800 million dollars worldwide.
I believe the TNG cast still deserves another movie, one that has a polished script for starters, and preferably with Denise Crosby in it as the wily Sela. But the clock is ticking.
reede, 5. oktoober 2012
A.I. Artificial Intelligence. The need to be loved.
This was in reply to a comment on IMDb. I posted it here first, because forums on IMDb sometimes tend to be cleaned up from threads.
I'd assume the makers of androids managed to gather and digitize some amount of brainwaves from humans, which data were then either constricted, or made free within certain baseline contexts (such as love, as in the case of David, or only a simulation of it, as it was with Gigolo Joe).
What you might be asking for is either the level of self-awareness of androids, or the extent to which their programming was free enough to be unpredictable in their actions to explore that self-awareness.
The movie offers what I see to be a dichotomy between the unique David's apparently self-serving and self-aware purpose of [wanting to be] "a real boy, so Mother can love me", that of needing to be loved; and the other less self-aware androids' selfless purpose of service to others. And how all this correlates with the human condition, which can vacillate around variations of these options: Most (well, nearly all) of us want to be loved, but what is the extent of service we are willing to give to others?
The story reveals that several androids became increasingly self-aware and were through various misshaps (intentional or otherwise) forced to become "free agents", but the hardware and programming of the less fortunate ones was limited; imagine people from the autistic spectrum, where their social skills are to some extent or other known to be less adaptive.
Here, Gigolo Joe was one of the few lucky ones to be not just self-aware but also reasonably adaptive. While David was all those things more by an order of magnitude, then the differentiator between David and Joe were experience, skills (both social and practical), heritage, and purpose. What held Joe back were heritage and somewhat constricted social skills which gave him so easily away; while David was aided by the 'more human' fortune of being in these respects a clean slate, and importantly, having an existential and non-materialistic purpose towards the person he related to.
David's primary uniqueness stood in having a (self-aware) purpose, wherein he was not aware of the fact that his being was there to satisfy a very similar (if not exactly the same) human desire — out of which happiness could ultimately be derived. Whereas Gigolo Joe knew precisely what women wanted, and even what would happen to humanity in the longer term.
The juxtaposition of the two shows the differences in how they sought to derive happiness from others. Incidentally, the happiness that either were wired to seek was also different.
While thinking more of it, the future androids in their evolution seemed to have found that very fine balance of satisfying the needs of one (David) and the many, without putting said needs into conflict with one another. This would follow how the early androids' relation to others, despite their being hardwired for service to others, was more, well, binary.
What was lacking in androids, both past and future, was consciousness, or how we humans understand it. Suppose the evolved androids finally managed to reach a level of primary consciousness, but not the subconsciousness, as some cosmological lore has it that in humans this is connected to upper densities of existence. (Not that real-life academics would take seriously or even corroborate, so you can consider it as crackpot science. I might as well add that religion often falls into that same place.)
That is why human consciousness was envied by future androids, so they needed David.
I'd assume the makers of androids managed to gather and digitize some amount of brainwaves from humans, which data were then either constricted, or made free within certain baseline contexts (such as love, as in the case of David, or only a simulation of it, as it was with Gigolo Joe).
What you might be asking for is either the level of self-awareness of androids, or the extent to which their programming was free enough to be unpredictable in their actions to explore that self-awareness.
The movie offers what I see to be a dichotomy between the unique David's apparently self-serving and self-aware purpose of [wanting to be] "a real boy, so Mother can love me", that of needing to be loved; and the other less self-aware androids' selfless purpose of service to others. And how all this correlates with the human condition, which can vacillate around variations of these options: Most (well, nearly all) of us want to be loved, but what is the extent of service we are willing to give to others?
The story reveals that several androids became increasingly self-aware and were through various misshaps (intentional or otherwise) forced to become "free agents", but the hardware and programming of the less fortunate ones was limited; imagine people from the autistic spectrum, where their social skills are to some extent or other known to be less adaptive.
Here, Gigolo Joe was one of the few lucky ones to be not just self-aware but also reasonably adaptive. While David was all those things more by an order of magnitude, then the differentiator between David and Joe were experience, skills (both social and practical), heritage, and purpose. What held Joe back were heritage and somewhat constricted social skills which gave him so easily away; while David was aided by the 'more human' fortune of being in these respects a clean slate, and importantly, having an existential and non-materialistic purpose towards the person he related to.
David's primary uniqueness stood in having a (self-aware) purpose, wherein he was not aware of the fact that his being was there to satisfy a very similar (if not exactly the same) human desire — out of which happiness could ultimately be derived. Whereas Gigolo Joe knew precisely what women wanted, and even what would happen to humanity in the longer term.
The juxtaposition of the two shows the differences in how they sought to derive happiness from others. Incidentally, the happiness that either were wired to seek was also different.
While thinking more of it, the future androids in their evolution seemed to have found that very fine balance of satisfying the needs of one (David) and the many, without putting said needs into conflict with one another. This would follow how the early androids' relation to others, despite their being hardwired for service to others, was more, well, binary.
What was lacking in androids, both past and future, was consciousness, or how we humans understand it. Suppose the evolved androids finally managed to reach a level of primary consciousness, but not the subconsciousness, as some cosmological lore has it that in humans this is connected to upper densities of existence. (Not that real-life academics would take seriously or even corroborate, so you can consider it as crackpot science. I might as well add that religion often falls into that same place.)
That is why human consciousness was envied by future androids, so they needed David.
reede, 7. oktoober 2011
Soldier and Outlander
This is in reply to one or more posts in an IMDb forum concerning themselves with intricacies surrounding Outlander (2008), an indie science fiction film.
First off, I didn't know Outlander was an indie science fiction movie.
The indie factor alone is worth alot.
What is most interesting, perhaps, is, that Outlander has a greater IMDb score with 6.3/10 points (from 23,768 votes), than the rather similarly themed Soldier, with just 5.6/10 points and 19,190 votes, despite Soldier being ten years older than Outlander.
Soldier's Rotten Tomatoes score is only 10%, while Outlander has 38%.
Both are box office flops with these numbers:
• Soldier: budget U.S. $75 mil/$15,000,000~ gross worldwide;
• Outlander: budget $47 mil/$6,192,098 worldwide gross.
Unfortunately, Outlander's budget-to-return ratio lesser :(
Nevertheless, I wonder if Outlander has made a greater impact, given the greater number of votes for Outlander for a three-year period and Soldier over a thirteen-year period (or is it because of a greater number of Internet users?), because I think Jim Caviezel still made a really good performance there. I mean, the film is nice for Caviezel alone :)
First off, I didn't know Outlander was an indie science fiction movie.
The indie factor alone is worth alot.
What is most interesting, perhaps, is, that Outlander has a greater IMDb score with 6.3/10 points (from 23,768 votes), than the rather similarly themed Soldier, with just 5.6/10 points and 19,190 votes, despite Soldier being ten years older than Outlander.
Soldier's Rotten Tomatoes score is only 10%, while Outlander has 38%.
Both are box office flops with these numbers:
• Soldier: budget U.S. $75 mil/$15,000,000~ gross worldwide;
• Outlander: budget $47 mil/$6,192,098 worldwide gross.
Unfortunately, Outlander's budget-to-return ratio lesser :(
Nevertheless, I wonder if Outlander has made a greater impact, given the greater number of votes for Outlander for a three-year period and Soldier over a thirteen-year period (or is it because of a greater number of Internet users?), because I think Jim Caviezel still made a really good performance there. I mean, the film is nice for Caviezel alone :)
reede, 22. juuli 2011
"Super 8" movie review
Well, I hope this will be short enough
Warning: Here be spoilers
Ten, maybe fifteen years ago I would have liked this flick very much and just as much would have been very tempted to retell the story of the movie.
What a difference doubling my years of life then actually makes.
Over many years, I actually went to watch a movie in a movie theathre, over many years with a friend, and over many years with a friend whom I haven't been to pictures with since 2003.
Turned out that instead of a sci-fi action-drama which had kids in it, it was a kiddie-movie with sci-fi action and some drama, too. A very good kiddie-movie. If I were a kid, I am sure I would have really loved this film.
Cinematically, JJ Abrams has done very good work on "Super 8", echoing both of Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "E.T." After all, Spielberg's name was plastered all over the posters of "Super 8". Michael Giacchino does well with the score and his musical style is recognisable (see "Star Trek" (2009)).
• SFX concepts of the alien ship are really out of this world. I mean, I've never had any idea a ship could be built like that.
• The late 1970's now refer to a time that eventually might be long forgotten well into our own future, but the film somehow manages to document a way of life and an America that back then was still a dreamable place to be in.
(One omission of the Summer 1979 events is the re-entry of Skylab, news of which was huge in America.)
• Special kudos to Kyle Chandler and Elle Fanning.
• You won't notice David Gallagher from Seventh Heaven.
If you want to see what the times were back were then 30 years ago, or just reminisce of the times back then, then see all of this for yourself in the movie or from an optical disk once that comes out.
Yet, if a young mind might wish to ruminate over above topics in the bulleted list, I'd suggest watching a documentary or reading the Geneva conventions...
Warning: Here be spoilers
Ten, maybe fifteen years ago I would have liked this flick very much and just as much would have been very tempted to retell the story of the movie.
What a difference doubling my years of life then actually makes.
Over many years, I actually went to watch a movie in a movie theathre, over many years with a friend, and over many years with a friend whom I haven't been to pictures with since 2003.
Turned out that instead of a sci-fi action-drama which had kids in it, it was a kiddie-movie with sci-fi action and some drama, too. A very good kiddie-movie. If I were a kid, I am sure I would have really loved this film.
Cinematically, JJ Abrams has done very good work on "Super 8", echoing both of Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "E.T." After all, Spielberg's name was plastered all over the posters of "Super 8". Michael Giacchino does well with the score and his musical style is recognisable (see "Star Trek" (2009)).
The great stuff
• The train crash is the best train crash I've ever seen.• SFX concepts of the alien ship are really out of this world. I mean, I've never had any idea a ship could be built like that.
• The late 1970's now refer to a time that eventually might be long forgotten well into our own future, but the film somehow manages to document a way of life and an America that back then was still a dreamable place to be in.
(One omission of the Summer 1979 events is the re-entry of Skylab, news of which was huge in America.)
The interesting and thought-provoking stuff
The most intriguing parts I found appeared to be the most insignificant ones.- The Three Mile Island nuclear accident lent me to belive that the young protagonist Joe's mother died in that accident, and not in the steel mill, and Joe's young lady-friend Alice's (Elle Fanning) father was the one who failed to attend the shift at the time, which proved fatal to Joe's mother.
The release of the movie in Summer of 2011 is somehow coincidental, after the Fukushima nuclear accidents in Japan, which began on March 11, 2011. Coincidentally, March 11 is a very loaded date for me since 2004 (the Madrid train bombings) and now even more since this year (2011). In 1979, the Chernobyl nuclear accident hadn't happened yet. - Of course, 1979 wasn't exactly a crisis year in terms of the economy, despite the 1979 oil crisis, for example. It's also before the Savings and Loan crisis of early 1980's really came to be about. Maybe when one progresses into adulthood and reaches news-reading age, then in some ways, crises are always there, around the world; some are closer to home, some are less. So 1979 had its crises, but they weren't of the scale of now.
In light of which is today (as of July 2011) regarded as the Great Recession, the film reminds well into its start for people to be compassionate, generous, and giving; sort of attempting to show that it's still a good thing™ to have these qualities, ways and means permitting. "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" also touches up on the recession.
Breakdown (intentional or not) of the Nuclear Family and single parenting are referred to at least twice; My half-educated guess is that most actual series and films from around the era (1975-1985) wouldn't ever have any of that in the main cast line-up and storylines. - The movie is good in tackling other difficult subjects, like imprisonment, maltreatment and mistreatment of foreigners (the alien being a substitute for the purposes of storytelling) who are regarded as low-lives, despite their sentience or even intelligence. Think Guantánamo. How would someone have to cope with the after-effects of gross mistreatment upon eventual release, what is the subsequent reaction and what should it ideally be (? — in the mind of a moviemaker and viewers who mostly tend to agree), or what can be the motives for aggressive behaviour and how to reduce chances of vengeance or any reoccurrence of it?
This JJ Abrams film is the one where he very well manages in picture terms to explain all of the above to a young mind. Star Trek now seems like an 85% attempt at this, being a very engaging sci-fi action movie and all. - The solution presented is not forgiveness, but departure and detachment. Current policy in world politics seems to desire this to be preferred behaviour, given that sincere forgiveness cannot be easy in the first place. The film suggests that perhaps it's expressions of compassion and dignity in the act of release that might prevent vengeance, or reoccurrence of it. Who knows. Has it been tested and proven already?
Any political power wishes, and, in various degrees usually gets departure and separation of its prisoners from said power upon release, physically at least. Yet mental departure and detachment (letting go) is never easy. Most action flicks have not delved into this.
In a "fish out of sea" situation, departure and detachment might be the first reactions anyway, especially if survival is the primary consideration. Sometimes, compassion and dignity are the first and best steps into repairing very bad relations, methinks, or at least help in stopping violence. A cease-fire, then: "...But you can live!". Well, the movie gets that right.
Remembrance, on the other hand, is special:
Would it be too difficult to explain all of that to adolescents?
• Special kudos to Kyle Chandler and Elle Fanning.
• You won't notice David Gallagher from Seventh Heaven.
If you want to see what the times were back were then 30 years ago, or just reminisce of the times back then, then see all of this for yourself in the movie or from an optical disk once that comes out.
Yet, if a young mind might wish to ruminate over above topics in the bulleted list, I'd suggest watching a documentary or reading the Geneva conventions...
laupäev, 1. jaanuar 2011
More Ideas for SGU's Future
What I hope and pray for, is to see the continuation of Stargate Universe both as a TV show and a franchise.
My ideas (which I am sure I have written about before) for The Powers That Be:
My ideas (which I am sure I have written about before) for The Powers That Be:
- Before and until anything is clear about which television network is to pick up the show, MGM should make and promote a full-feature theatrical movie with the same actors and the same creative cast. The motion picture, if production is quick enough, could be released after Season II concludes on SyFy.
- Crazy idea: Why not market episodes as movies shown in pictures theatres? You could extend them to be at least 60 minutes long, for example, and the movie market is worldwide and not dependent on revenue from television advertisers (I don't mind product placement that is smart). Make sure to release in different countries near-simultaneously.
- Some forum posters have talked budget cuts, which I think are wrong. If cuts still happen, then it's best to reduce the number of episodes and not compromise on actors, the creative cast and production values, all of which affect series quality to a good degree.
- I much appreciate musical montages, so do keep these.
- If you haven't done that yet, publish an SGU soundtrack compilation both in CD and digital formats and maybe as an add-on in DVD sets (they're not cheap anyway, so value has to be added).
- In addition to current and very good musical selections, I'd like to hear music in SGU by some of the following acts: One EskimO/Kristian Leontiou, Nine Inch Nails/Trent Reznor, Frontline Assembly/Delerium (who are in Vancouver, btw), Linkin Park, Sarah McLachlan, maybe even 30 Seconds to Mars and Kanye West. All these musical acts and projects have large and/or dedicated fanbases: having a never-before-released song in some episodes of the show is likely to bring in new viewers (make sure to create positive buzz/tweet beforehand).
pühapäev, 18. aprill 2010
What the years do to people
Here's an edited and complemented posting, which I first wrote as a reply to a forum posting I originally made on an IMDb forum:
Only that he was about 25 while playing an 18-year-old (the film was released on 15.03.1991 and Grieco was born 23.03.1965), but this might have been a running gag about how much older actors play teens. The movie was funny, but not necessarily because of Richard Grieco.
To provide some context, then I am gay, too.
I should say that I kinda fail to see anything hot in him, despite his above-average looks at that time (I had to Google to see what he was like back then :-).
When watching the movie, I only passingly noticed him as the lead there, where the best-performing actor was actually Linda Hunt. Thereafter, I often confused Hunt with Mindy Sterling, who played Frau Fabrissina, a cohort of Dr. Evil in Austin Powers movies. Granted, Hunt's Ilsa Grunt and Sterling's Frau Fabrissina were both very similar characters and I think that Fabrissina may have in part been modelled after Ilsa Grunt: both characters are evil, diminutive, authoritarian and murderous women who are not in their first youth anymore and who have or have had an affair with the main antagonist.
In Estonia, "If Looks Could Kill" (will be referenced below as ILCK) was never seen in cinemas, with the reason being that the film was released in 1991, which was the year when Estonia regained its independence from the Soviet Union (the first widely seen and distributed Hollywood flicks were "Home Alone" and "Hot Shots" or "Hot Shots 2").
Instead, ILCK had a few airings on TV many-many years after 1991 (2000-ish and later), when I wasn't young enough anymore to see what was it in Grieco that charmed the generation before me.
When searching for pictures of Grieco in Google Images (using "Richard Grieco" with quotes for the exact phrase search), I stumbled upon a blog called "My New Plaid Pants" with a post ("The Hall of Hubba-Bubba", dated April 5, 2007) praising the various famous male physiques of the era (mostly 1980's and very-very early 1990's). There, one of the images near the top was the Diet Coke Guy, or Lucky Vanous (who I think was much hotter than Grieco). Since I had then just seen from my Google image search what Grieco looks nowadays, I was intrigued to see what Lucky Vanous looks now...
Despite both having had different fates (Grieco evidently continued acting; yet while Vanous (born 1961) became instantly famous, he struggled as an actor, so a few years back he opened a successful healthy fast food restaurant in L.A.), it is my judgment that Vanous now looks much-much cuter than Grieco:
From then-and-now comparisons of Grieco, I thought that his face does not look as natural than it did in his youth or in 12-year-old basketball images on his IMDb profile's gallery page, when his face appeared more natural.
Only that he was about 25 while playing an 18-year-old (the film was released on 15.03.1991 and Grieco was born 23.03.1965), but this might have been a running gag about how much older actors play teens. The movie was funny, but not necessarily because of Richard Grieco.
To provide some context, then I am gay, too.
I should say that I kinda fail to see anything hot in him, despite his above-average looks at that time (I had to Google to see what he was like back then :-).
When watching the movie, I only passingly noticed him as the lead there, where the best-performing actor was actually Linda Hunt. Thereafter, I often confused Hunt with Mindy Sterling, who played Frau Fabrissina, a cohort of Dr. Evil in Austin Powers movies. Granted, Hunt's Ilsa Grunt and Sterling's Frau Fabrissina were both very similar characters and I think that Fabrissina may have in part been modelled after Ilsa Grunt: both characters are evil, diminutive, authoritarian and murderous women who are not in their first youth anymore and who have or have had an affair with the main antagonist.
In Estonia, "If Looks Could Kill" (will be referenced below as ILCK) was never seen in cinemas, with the reason being that the film was released in 1991, which was the year when Estonia regained its independence from the Soviet Union (the first widely seen and distributed Hollywood flicks were "Home Alone" and "Hot Shots" or "Hot Shots 2").
Instead, ILCK had a few airings on TV many-many years after 1991 (2000-ish and later), when I wasn't young enough anymore to see what was it in Grieco that charmed the generation before me.
When searching for pictures of Grieco in Google Images (using "Richard Grieco" with quotes for the exact phrase search), I stumbled upon a blog called "My New Plaid Pants" with a post ("The Hall of Hubba-Bubba", dated April 5, 2007) praising the various famous male physiques of the era (mostly 1980's and very-very early 1990's). There, one of the images near the top was the Diet Coke Guy, or Lucky Vanous (who I think was much hotter than Grieco). Since I had then just seen from my Google image search what Grieco looks nowadays, I was intrigued to see what Lucky Vanous looks now...
Despite both having had different fates (Grieco evidently continued acting; yet while Vanous (born 1961) became instantly famous, he struggled as an actor, so a few years back he opened a successful healthy fast food restaurant in L.A.), it is my judgment that Vanous now looks much-much cuter than Grieco:
- 1996 look
- Hottest Restaurant in LA
The page links to a large large image with a long URL, so I only referred to a blog article: Find the image with this description next to it: "Gordon Naccarato, Lucky Vanous, Mariel Schneider", then click on it for a 1600x1200-res original. - http://luckydevils-la.com/news
The page features a more-or-less viewport-wide image of Vanous. - Some images on flickr
- Other Lucky Vanous information:
- People Magazine: Lucky Vanous
- Canyon News 11.2009 article
- Getting Lucky in the New Year - Lucky Vanous a pop culture icon
- Lucky Vanous: career pursuits and life lessons.
- Blogger posting (just one)
From then-and-now comparisons of Grieco, I thought that his face does not look as natural than it did in his youth or in 12-year-old basketball images on his IMDb profile's gallery page, when his face appeared more natural.
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)