There's a certain naive arrogance in statements about alien intelligences and the sort of power or motivation they would likely have to reach our planet, and whether they would be bothered invading, or wipe us off in one crazy energy burst, or whatever. I think it speaks more to our lack of scope and vision that we automatically fall back on what we know rather than confront what we don't know. And what we know is how *we* would behave, and how to impose our own logic or rationale on (or anthropomorphise?) this concept of aliens. And what we don't know is so so much.
I haven't seen this movie. I can only assume that it's like so many other movies, where aliens invade and humans fight back and the stage is set for multiple battles. So the aliens have decided to invade and we don't know why. But why is it unlikely that aliens would invade (assuming aliens exist)? Why is it unlikely that they would have to fight for domination? Why is it unlikely they would bother with us should they manage to make the trip?
The argument is as specious and as facile as supposing one could understand the nature of a deity (e.g. the Christian god - and no, i'm not religious) or one could understand the physical limitations or psychological machinations of a spectre. The simple matter is - these are undefined entities on which we have no basis in fact to make any speculations on.
Do all aliens have to be carbon based? Does all space travel consume resources? Would technological advancement automatically imply advancement in logic, strategy, or benevolence? The simple answer is we just don't know.
So spare us the assumption that alien invasion is ridiculous or far fetched. Spare us the human psychology egotism of presuming to know how aliens would function or what could and couldn't work in 'the real world' of space and other worlds. There is no suspension of disbelief in considering the possibility of an alien invasion, only a suspension of arrogance that we would presume to know whether aliens could and would decide to pay our tiny backwater a visit.
I haven't seen this movie. I can only assume that it's like so many other movies, where aliens invade and humans fight back and the stage is set for multiple battles. So the aliens have decided to invade and we don't know why. But why is it unlikely that aliens would invade (assuming aliens exist)? Why is it unlikely that they would have to fight for domination? Why is it unlikely they would bother with us should they manage to make the trip?
The argument is as specious and as facile as supposing one could understand the nature of a deity (e.g. the Christian god - and no, i'm not religious) or one could understand the physical limitations or psychological machinations of a spectre. The simple matter is - these are undefined entities on which we have no basis in fact to make any speculations on.
Do all aliens have to be carbon based? Does all space travel consume resources? Would technological advancement automatically imply advancement in logic, strategy, or benevolence? The simple answer is we just don't know.
So spare us the assumption that alien invasion is ridiculous or far fetched. Spare us the human psychology egotism of presuming to know how aliens would function or what could and couldn't work in 'the real world' of space and other worlds. There is no suspension of disbelief in considering the possibility of an alien invasion, only a suspension of arrogance that we would presume to know whether aliens could and would decide to pay our tiny backwater a visit.
Sorry all, but I think you've completely missed how the minds of these people work. I imagine the boardroom meeting will go something like this:
"Oh no, it doesn't matter how much money we spend on ads, special fx, or star power, the online machine will peg it for the crap movie that it is! What do we do???"
"Well in that case, we spend more money and hire people to put out *good* word of mouth online..."
"Oh no, it doesn't matter how much money we spend on ads, special fx, or star power, the online machine will peg it for the crap movie that it is! What do we do???"
"Well in that case, we spend more money and hire people to put out *good* word of mouth online..."
I'm sorry, did we watch the same episode? It's not the Doctor choosing humans over an alien species. It's the doctor rescuing a city full of innocent creatures who have no clue or defence against another species who deceived this city, mutated the citizens, and attempted to drown the whole city. It would have been a typical rescue plot whether it was set on Earth or another planet. If you're so keen to find prejudice, try the mirror.
Agree with all the negatives, and disagree with some of the positives. The triffids were actually a little ropey thanks to some below-par CGI and too much b-grade tentacle action and screaming. The whole story was about a species losing its one advantage to another, and this series took it down several notches by just focusing on one blow-hard who lacked any of the charisma/menace needed to pull off what he did.
One of the best things about the book was there was no quick and easy solution. Especially no 'deus ex machina' which made no sense whatsoever.
@Fuji-kun: What a weird post. It's almost like you're begging for some anti-Apple trolling action...
@van_line: Don't forget the B-grade heroes F.O.R.C.E.P.S and P.L.E.A.T.H.E.R
To paraphrase a quote from a fantasy book series - How do you hurt someone who's lost Futurama? Give it back to them - broken.
I know Fox is hoping that they can get away with this, that fans and newcomers will focus on the jokes, and the drawings, and bank on finding almost-but-not-quite-the-same voice acting. And given the current economy, they're probably hoping there'll be plenty of applicants, and existing artists and writers will do their best to just hang on to their jobs.
Which brings to mind another quote - evil flourishes when good people do nothing.
Please everyone - don't petition Fox. Petition the writers and the artists and everyone who actually has a heart and a love for Futurama. Don't allow this show to come back half-baked and malformed. Stand up and defend the real voices of Futurama. Refuse to work for a studio that indulges in the worst bullying this side of the financial crisis.
Here's my favourite rebuttal from any fanboy. "It's just a show". Because apparently applying judgement and critical thinking should only be reserved for things which you know already pass the taste test.
No, I havent seen much BSG and only sporadically follow Lost. I'm commenting mainly on the poor logic that people exhibit when they're in their fervour.
So many one-word answers spring to mind:
Boring.
Tired.
Re-tread.
"Popular" (yes, in the most negative, commercial sense)
Risky (again, in the worst possible way)
And some more which probably wouldn't make it past the censor.
I'm really glad Sam Raimi didn't get a chance to do a Trek reboot. Abrams and co did such a fantastic job with it that I would have regretted not seeing that version (assuming i'd even know about it - perhaps an older version of me would come back and tell me all about it).
I don't want to heap abuse on Raimi - oh wait, actually I do. Spider man 3 clearly showed he wasn't able to handle studio pressure and if the Trek reboot was as critically slagged and inferior as S3 was, then i'm not sure how the franchise would have survived.
It seems that more and more, people (read showbiz people who hold the cash) are jumping on the franchise bandwagon. Once it used to be sequels, now it's reboots and resurrected shows. The common denominator is 'how much money can we squeeze from a loyal fan base'?
Everyone knows the best story is the one with a clear beginning, middle, and end, that's been planned out in advance. Not one that's made up as it goes (read: some movie scripts) and not one where you go for the second and third pressing, just to squeeze a little bit more from characters who have nothing more to say. Firefly died before its time. Serenity rewarded the faithful with a finishing flourish. I'd love for more adventures with the crew, but only if there was a story begging to be told, not because a callow studio exec with more dollar signs than grey matter in their head decided it would be a good money maker.
Strange, I watched both the 'True Lies' and 'Reign of fire' trailers and didnt spot anything I hadnt seen before on my own dvds. I saw helicopters in 'Reign of fire', but that was the scene where they send the jumpers down to try and bag a dragon. And there was nothing in 'True lies' which was unfamiliar. Could there be different versions of the dvds?
I subscribe to the Scott Adams view of Trek future and human nature. If people didnt have to work for money, I would spend all my waking hours bludging in a holodeck and zapping anyone who annoyed me with a phaser.
I quite enjoyed the Superman/Batman Public Enemies comic story, so am keen to see how this pans out.
The first movie i've ever seen where, after it ended, I thought to myself "I want to see that again!"; that's how good I thought it was. So yes, I liked it.
I could be nitpicky, but when there were SO many good moments, and where the whole is greater than the sum of all those good moments, I think I can overlook the minor quibbles.
And if anyone's keeping count, I count myself a trekkie from TOS, mainly TNG and DS9, and fading away at Voyager (and Insurrection) onwards.
@mtaco: It wasn't star trek? I'm *sure* I saw something in it that referenced star trek. Maybe the title...or the characters... i'm sure there was *something*. I guess the action, emotional resonance, and daring storylines might have been the main difference.
@His_Steveness: I'm guessing too many studios have had their hands burned by exactly that sort of promise: "This one will be different"
The video game adaptation has always been plagued by low returns, either critically or commercially, and right now a solid fan base still isnt a good enough guarantee for investment. I'm betting we'll see a lot more 'reboots' before we see any chances taken on non-franchise IP.
All through the movie release, Sam Raimi was talking about how happy he was with the movie, how good it was, etc etc. I strongly disliked a lot of the movie, but either way, what a cop-out. To try and have it both ways like that, pretending to support it to ensure plenty of publicity, then to cover his ass after the critical and fan slag-off - talk about a lack of integrity from someone who I thought stood on his own two feet.
Liz Lemon yelled for people to vote? I dont remember that episode
