Bad film with amazing premise and mediocre execution that you can't stop thinking about?
-
Dude yes, I was so hyped for it, but it really underdelivered
Bits of it were good. Seems like something went wrong in production or they ran out of money or something. Some of the effects were really good and there was a real mood to the post apocalypse world but it was very uneven especially the way the entire process of civilization ending was just a montage of newspaper headlines. It's ok to be post apocalypse of you don't want to show the apocalypse but that was just cheese. Also there were the odd shots that were of just such a lower standard than the rest of the film. Like this scene where a guy climbs up a watertower and stands atop it getting ready to throw a spear and for some reason after the effects extravaganza up until that point in the film it looked a cheap television blue screen that was super awkward. I guess they wanted it to look taller than in reality and show the desolate landscape but it's so weird that after all the aerial dragon combat they'd pulled off pretty well for the most part that THAT was somehow difficult. I seem to recall storywise there was some very disappointing ending too but it's been rather too long for me to recall it now anyway.
-
Man in the High Castle tv show. The premise was interesting, Nazis taking over the US and the population figting back. However, the show quickly devolved into a confusing mess.
Nazis are in charge of the US government, yet there's other Nazis on the run from the Nazis in charge? And they're hiding bibles? I was left scratching my head wondering if there were any characters that weren't Nazis. I guess it's a story about how bad guys always turn on each other?
Also The Witcher season 1 tv show. I've never played the games before and knew nothing about it. I was hoping the tv series would be my introduction to the games, but... what in the actual fuck. Was the director drunk? Is this a show about medieval fantasy time travel and I'm just not getting it?
Is this a show about medieval fantasy time travel and I’m just not getting it?
The three main perspectives it follows take place at different points in and over different amounts of time but each one is internally completely linear and then they all end the season at the same point as each other. Basically, the less you’re making an effort to follow the plot the easier it is to follow because keeping track of the interconnectedness distracts you from the straightforward character stories.
This isn’t me trying to convince you to go back, to be clear, I’m just hoping this will give you some closure.
-
In Time (2011). Time is currency in the dystopia in the film - paying for something decreases your lifespan, earning wages increases it.
The movie sets up a really cool class structure, wherein there are rich people born with/inheriting hundreds of thousands of years of life, and poor people barely managing to scrape enough hours to stay alive until they can earn more the next day. There are segmented areas of the city that cost years to get into.
Overall incredible premise, but the story wasn't exceptional beyond a couple of the cool mechanics you might expect based on said premise.
In time is absolutely an idea that I wish would get revisited for a TV show.
When I was a kid, for some reason, I loved the original West World movie, which is about 20% high concept and 80% "how do we copy terminator when all we have are a bunch of random Wild West, medieval and classical back lots?"
Obviously a few years ago HBO picked it up for a show, and that first season explores some of the richest philosophy I've seen on TV, in the way only Sci-Fi can; by building characters and technology directly around their philosophical takes and stress testing them. Also simultaneously it created an incredibly compelling story and characters. All of this stemmed from the idea "what if there was a wild west theme park manned by perfectly realistic animatronics?"
In Time may not have the cult classic reputation of the first Westworld but it's got appeal and charm, while being basically only interesting in it's high concept, and therefore perfect to pull apart and explore an HBO style branching plot. I bet you could get Justin Timberlake to appear in it again too, for added audience appeal. A show like this can also explore multiple characters in different classes, and those who interact with both. It's just wasn't that suited to a movie.
-
Disneys stance is to be middle of the ground on everything. Writers or source material bring in a ton of actually interesting stuff, only to be snubbed and half assed. It happens so consistently in all their shows. It's maddening!
Have you tried Andor yet? That show is crazy good.
-
In time is absolutely an idea that I wish would get revisited for a TV show.
When I was a kid, for some reason, I loved the original West World movie, which is about 20% high concept and 80% "how do we copy terminator when all we have are a bunch of random Wild West, medieval and classical back lots?"
Obviously a few years ago HBO picked it up for a show, and that first season explores some of the richest philosophy I've seen on TV, in the way only Sci-Fi can; by building characters and technology directly around their philosophical takes and stress testing them. Also simultaneously it created an incredibly compelling story and characters. All of this stemmed from the idea "what if there was a wild west theme park manned by perfectly realistic animatronics?"
In Time may not have the cult classic reputation of the first Westworld but it's got appeal and charm, while being basically only interesting in it's high concept, and therefore perfect to pull apart and explore an HBO style branching plot. I bet you could get Justin Timberlake to appear in it again too, for added audience appeal. A show like this can also explore multiple characters in different classes, and those who interact with both. It's just wasn't that suited to a movie.
I loved the original West World movie, which is about 20% high concept and 80% “how do we copy terminator when all we have are a bunch of random Wild West, medieval and classical back lots?”
I'm sorry what? 'West World' came out in 1973, 'The Terminator' came out in 1984. Am I missing something here?
-
The box art put me off thisnone, but skimming the plot and it reads like an amazing visual spectacle. Might watch this one
This was the movie I immediately thought of.
It's a terrific LOOKING movie, but the two leads had absolutely no chemistry. At first I couldn't figure out if they were partners, spouses, dating, brother & sister, etc.
The production design was spectacular, though.
-
Dark City (1998) could definitely fit the bill, it has so many unique ideas for that time in film and you can see there’s of all sorts of future sci-fi movies in it from the matrix to inception, it’s a very visually ugly movie and the acting is subpar but as a premise it’s super interesting. Generally I think remakes are a waste of time and money but I’d love to see this movie with a proper budget and modern technology
Jennifer Connelly is the best part of the movie
-
Eragon.
There is a reason that most fans pretend the film never happened
What film? as I look from my bed to my bookshelf with all 4 books
-
It's a bad star wars movie because of the hyperspace ram.
SciFi inherently requires suspension of disbelief and so I find the way these types of stories ground themselves is through the rules they set. For example fire/explosions don't really make sense in space but its a consistent thing so w/e.
Hyperspace ramming breaks the entire concept of Star wars BC why hasn't anyone done it before? Its the perfect weapon for asymmetrical warfare, its cheap and its very effective. Imagine how a weapon like that could be used with a robot piloting a junk ship, why even build a death star just strap a bunch of garbage to a hyperspace drive and ram it into a planet. Its so effective that every fight in the future needs to consider it as well.
I'd defend this movie far more if it didn't do this. But it didn't only damage its own movie it damaged every story star wars has told retrospectively.
As I recall, hyperspace is like a pocket dimension. They just speed up a whole lot to enter hyperspace. So you can't collide with things 'in hyperspace', but only as you're going really fast while transitioning to hyperspace, which is quite a bit more limited in capability.
Hyperspace drives are expensive, and droids are sentient (so its still suicidal). Using it as a weapon would be like having an shotgun in an fps game, where the first 5 feet is extremely lethal to really big targets, whereas anything after that is a waste of time. Also each shot is $10k.
The real question would be why didn't she just splat against the cruiser's shields as they established that was a problem in the previous movie (when they need to hyperspace through the shielding of that planet), unless they had a Galaxy Quest moment where they forgot to flip the shields on.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Timeline! The movie was completely forgettable but the concept was pretty cool. I loved the book.
-
I've watched all of them. I was a TF fan as a kid. I watched it every morning before school and on Saturday mornings. The movies just....I don't know. The first one was the best of the live action. Bumblebee maybe. All of them felt more machine like, except the stupid peeing...wtf...
That said, they were not great. The story, on concept, seemed ok. The execution sucked. The acting was not great. The tropes were un needed, didn't even really fit in, and just plain stupid at best. Mostly they were irritating. Like someone dragging their nails on a chalk board in the middle of a mediocre movie.
The last couple felt more like an attempt at hero porn. [que "heroic" music, lame Walberg lines where he wields some weapon that makes no sense, then lots of booms. Don't forget the meaningless jumping, falling all over the place, and special forces that lean more on the special than forces.]
The only good thing that came out of them was the limited re release of the OG toys. I managed to finally snag an Optimus and a couple others.
The best thing about the cartoon was Optimus Prime being 'best tv dad', megatron/galvatron's evil laugh and speeches, soundwave's voice, starscream scheming, starscream being killed off for being a whiny backstabber too many times, the art, the touch and the fact that all of the supporting cast that were good in their own right.
-
Man in the High Castle tv show. The premise was interesting, Nazis taking over the US and the population figting back. However, the show quickly devolved into a confusing mess.
Nazis are in charge of the US government, yet there's other Nazis on the run from the Nazis in charge? And they're hiding bibles? I was left scratching my head wondering if there were any characters that weren't Nazis. I guess it's a story about how bad guys always turn on each other?
Also The Witcher season 1 tv show. I've never played the games before and knew nothing about it. I was hoping the tv series would be my introduction to the games, but... what in the actual fuck. Was the director drunk? Is this a show about medieval fantasy time travel and I'm just not getting it?
Season 1 is based on the first book, which was made some a bunch of serials in a fiction magazine. It's honestly pretty spot on with the book and the following books and seasons are fully linear.
-
Man in the High Castle tv show. The premise was interesting, Nazis taking over the US and the population figting back. However, the show quickly devolved into a confusing mess.
Nazis are in charge of the US government, yet there's other Nazis on the run from the Nazis in charge? And they're hiding bibles? I was left scratching my head wondering if there were any characters that weren't Nazis. I guess it's a story about how bad guys always turn on each other?
Also The Witcher season 1 tv show. I've never played the games before and knew nothing about it. I was hoping the tv series would be my introduction to the games, but... what in the actual fuck. Was the director drunk? Is this a show about medieval fantasy time travel and I'm just not getting it?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Man in the High Castle tv show. The premise was interesting, Nazis taking over the US and the population figting back. However, the show quickly devolved into a confusing mess.
Unfortunately the case for a good portion of Philip K. Dick's work... Schizophrenia, amphetamines, and misogyny can do that I guess.
But when he was good... He was the best of his genre. Literally imo...
-
This post did not contain any content.
I agree with all the other people in this thread mentioning 'In Time'. It had such a great premise, and I didn't even hate the execution, but it was mediocre. It was like they went 50% of the way to a flawless execution and just said "fuck it, that's good enough". The concept has a lot of elements to explore, like classism, labor exploitation, human rights, even free will to a point... A movie just isn't the right vehicle for that story. It needs to be a series. Done right, you could explore all that while having an overarching plotline, and still have your weekly subplots and B stories. That would give the story time to fully develop the romantic connection between the poor guy who comes into a bunch of time, and the rich girl who empathizes with him. That romance felt incredibly rushed in the movie, but you could build it up over a whole season in a show.
I also want to mention another movie that I'm not sure belongs here. It's not a bad movie, nor do I think the execution was mediocre, but for the life of me I can't figure out why it didn't do better. That movie is called 'Push', with Chris Evans and Dakota Fanning. I just watched it again the other night, and I freaking love it. The concept isn't that amazing or original, but the way they present it is great. There isn't a ton of exposition or world-building. They kinda just drop you in and let you figure it out, and I really like that. Evans and Fanning have great onscreen chemistry, and Djimon Honsou is a perfect bad guy. This is another one where I think it would make a great series, even though I think the movie was done really well. It's just kind of a perfect mid-budget sci-fi action movie, and we don't seem to get those anymore.
-
Only losers and goobers use AI to make their argument for them. Try thinking like a real human.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I didn't use AI to make my argument for me. I used AI to make their argument since nobody was willing to actually make an argument outside of saying the movie is a "deconstruction" three separate times without stating what they mean or how it isn't just a blatant ripoff of the older films.
-
I didn't use AI to make my argument for me. I used AI to make their argument since nobody was willing to actually make an argument outside of saying the movie is a "deconstruction" three separate times without stating what they mean or how it isn't just a blatant ripoff of the older films.
You were the one using AI, goober. Stop.
-
It’s not bad, but the pacing is terrible and it’s not really the movie that the trailers made it out to be. The concept and trailer made it look like a completely different movie.
I still enjoyed it, but I’d only give it a 6/10. Robert Pattinson is quickly turning into one of my favourite actors though, he’s great in it.
Have you seen him in Good Time? One of my favorite movies ever.
-
Have you tried Andor yet? That show is crazy good.
Oh yeah it's awesome, definitely is able to commit to their ideas and ideals
-
I thought the bigger issue was the premise. If earth is in a climate apocalypse, and we have extremely advanced technology that lets us bring life to far out planets, then why are we leaving earth? Can’t those same technologies be applied to saving the earth people?
The whole “we have to go space” feels like manifest destiny and the desperate urge of capitalism to expand.
It can be easier to start with a fresh slate than it is to salvage a mess.
-
Have you seen him in Good Time? One of my favorite movies ever.
I haven’t, but I’ll add it to the list now. Thanks
