Chappie isn't even out, and I'm already disappointed
- Thread starter Zontar
- Start date
Fox12 said:
everything is political in *some* way...I don't mind having a "message" depending on how its donekris40k said:
...I mean ok District 9 was about as subtle as a Simple Plan song BUT I give it a pass because of its originality and the fact it was south African as opoased to American..which was a nice change
Things could be improved by giving them only the emotions that make sense, imo, instead of a blanket 'you're human except metallic instead of meaty now, enjoy your fancy new emotions'. Like, say, a need for companionship and empathy; reduced self-preservation (which would be present by necessity; we have such a strong sense of it because losing a finger could be fatal under the wrong circumstances) combined with emotional empathy instead of the usual "I'm a machine, I must protect life" would make a robot's decision to sacrifice, say, an arm for its friends much more important than "hurr I'm expendable but I'll make a show of pretending I'm not and then the humans will mourn for 5 seconds before going off to have sex".Fox12 said:I have to agree. You have emotions or you don't. The worst offenders are things like Aigis in Persona 3, or Tima from the (anime) film Metropolis. They speak in monotones and barely have a personality. These types of characters usually don't develop well either. It's unfortunate, since there's potential. How would a robot with human emotions react in real life? It would probably have to be asexual, since it can't reproduce, and it doesn't really need food, water, or shelter. You therefore have a human being who doesn't have any of the needs that other human beings have. Sex and survival are hard wired into our brain, just look at Freud. If you remove those then you're rewriting aspects of human nature. Also, even if it can feel love, it wouldn't be the romantic love we all think of. At best it could possibly feel something akin to friendship, assuming that a robotocist could find a way to replicate these emotions in a mind. The machins would be a sort of impartial observer of human emotions, since it wouldn't have the same hangups as the rest of us, even if it did have emotions. It would also have to deal with terrible isolation. There's really potential for an interesting, deep story if well done.
Besides, emotions aren't illogical. We evolved them for a reason, they factor into logic. I'm so tired of people acting like love and logic don't go together
Also, commy director is a commy. I'll be avoiding his films from now on regardless.
Also, come on, the guy may (or may not) be a filthy godless commie, but as long as he doesn't pull another Elysium, his personal opinions aren't really relevant to his movie-making skills (something I agree with Vault on, for once).
D9 was actually awesome. For me, it was mostly awesome because the main character was a dick. An asshole. An unredeemable douchenozzle. Everything he did was out of selfishness, fear and/or hate. It was just so... human.Vault101 said:
Has no one learned the magic rule of the internet?Zontar said:
I mean no disrespect by the last panel but, uh, they come as a set...
Anyway, I was never really interested in Chappie. It started out looking like E.T. or A.I. and I really didn't like those movies. On top of the fact Chappie's voice really... ... chappied my ass. I'm sorr.. ya know what? I'm not sorry, to pun hell we go! Lol, anyway. And all of the "non-government" humans, besides the scientist dude, just really rubbed me the wrong way. However, I usually like Hue Jackman and I think he would do absolutely wonderful in that role. I'm not the biggest fan of politics forced in films, when I notice it. I didn't notice it too much in District 9 until I started thinking about the movie, but Elysium just hit you over the head with it.
You know throwing buzzwords like "commie" and "lunatic" is one way for people to completely ignore your ideas. And the movie is more about immigration if you actually paid any attention to the movie.Jack T. Pumpkin said:
OT: I have seen the trailers but not the newer ones you mention mate. To be honest I might enjoy it if they keep to the message the trailers sent out, the first trailers i mean.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone say they hated D9, honestly. Even if they didn't care for the politics, it's a good movie and they don't get in the way. If anything, D9's a brilliant example of how to do a political message without fucking up the entire movie.Vault101 said:
How long have you been a commie spy, Ivan? What secrets are you selling to the Reds? How much did they pay you? Did they threaten you? Or is your heart just *that* Red?Haerthan said:
It's disappointed you before it's even come out? That's a disturbing precedent to set. What happened to giving things a chance, even if it doesn't look like your cup of tea at least let it actually come out before you write it off. I understand being skeptical, but this is a bit much.
From what I could tell from the first trailers I saw, it seemed to be about a robot with human-like intelligence and emotions leading some sort of rebellion. The trailers I saw after that seem to be about the same thing, they're just expounding on it a bit. It seems to me that you just saw the first bits about an intelligent robot and assumed it would be about how society would accept such a being. You can't fault the movie if that's not what it's about, especially when you won't give it a chance to tell you what it's about before you condemn it.
And no, they didn't change the theme of the movie halfway through the ad campaign, do you know how late a movie has to be in development before they start releasing previews? They didn't decide to re-do the movie weeks before it's release just to spite you.
And at least it's an original IP launching, from a director that's proven himself to pretty competent when it comes to doing original stories. Considering the movie industry is made up of like 50% reboots these days, you'd think people might not be so quick to disregard it based on something so shallow and paltry as 20 or so seconds of movie footage.
From what I could tell from the first trailers I saw, it seemed to be about a robot with human-like intelligence and emotions leading some sort of rebellion. The trailers I saw after that seem to be about the same thing, they're just expounding on it a bit. It seems to me that you just saw the first bits about an intelligent robot and assumed it would be about how society would accept such a being. You can't fault the movie if that's not what it's about, especially when you won't give it a chance to tell you what it's about before you condemn it.
And no, they didn't change the theme of the movie halfway through the ad campaign, do you know how late a movie has to be in development before they start releasing previews? They didn't decide to re-do the movie weeks before it's release just to spite you.
And at least it's an original IP launching, from a director that's proven himself to pretty competent when it comes to doing original stories. Considering the movie industry is made up of like 50% reboots these days, you'd think people might not be so quick to disregard it based on something so shallow and paltry as 20 or so seconds of movie footage.
well any well regarded movie is going to have backlash...some more than othersJack T. Pumpkin said:
but yeah it seems eather A.) it was too "preachy" and B.) it wasn't THAT good, just gimmicky
people said similar things about Wall-e in regards to moralizing but whatever...Wall-e did it right too
I haven't seen Elysium but reacting to criticism of social inequality with "THEY WANT TO TAKE MUH THINGS!!!" is...a little reactionaryJack T. Pumpkin said:
that said by the sounds of it Elysium was pretty non-sensical anyway
The Party is disappointed by your lack of motivational skills. Promise one squad first pick of captured German rations and send them to distract the Tigers while you sweep around and shoot them in the back.Haerthan said:
Addendum: all captured German rations will be given directly to your superior officer.
It's actually because of the whole "You've got no right to your high tech, it belongs to everyone!" thing. For good or ill, people have no obligation to share their stuff. Good people share their stuff. They don't have to, but they do. That's why they're good people. You've got no right to take it from those who don't because you think they're dicks (and yes, the richie-riches in that movie were dicks).Vault101 said:
Plus there's that whole overpopulation thing which would only be made worse by insta-heal devices, like Ihateregistering said. On top of the righteous rebels basically stealing all the oppressive ebil rich folks' stuff, it was an obscenely short-sighted move.
Could still be better than Elysium. Good lord, that movie could have been called Lost Potential.
Don't know if I'll have the money to see this one when it comes out.
Don't know if I'll have the money to see this one when it comes out.
Setting aside the silliness of the quote... Society cannot function by blindly worshipping at the altar of private property rights. No society ever has, and it is likely that none ever will. It is necessary (and universally compulsory to one degree or another) that people share; without that, there is no civilization, and without civilization, ironically there is no private property rights.Jack T. Pumpkin said:
The reality of private property is that there is no reality to private property. It is a social agreement in the first place. The greedy super rich demand that everyone respect their ever-growing social rights while continuously denying that anybody else should have any such thing at all.
thease are simplifications of complex social issues...though I do agree that oppressed or no one does not have the right to gun down innocents...even if they are rich innocentsJack T. Pumpkin said:
[quote/]Plus there's that whole overpopulation thing which would only be made worse by insta-heal devices[/quote]
a good quality of life can help curb overpopulation but...that's a whole other thing
also wasn't one of the inconsistencies that it would have really cost the rich people nothing to share their tech? or why people have to work when we have robots?
perhaps we shouldn't be applying complex political ideas to what is essentially a caricature anyway
*sshhhhh shh* no politics!...
[I/]to an extent[/I] we had tribal territory's, fortresses, towns, walls ect, holding land physical is "real"Pyrian said:
and in the future we might get automated defense turrents...nothing arbitrairy about being filled with bullets
No, it's a legal agreement. If you come onto my property and don't leave when I ask you to, you can get arrested because you broke the law (law=legal), not because you broke some sort of unspoken social agreement. Same way you get arrested if you take MY things without asking.Pyrian said:
Huh? I can't speak for everywhere, but at least in the US it's generally the super-rich who push the hardest for people to be left alone and for the Government to stay away from people's rights.Pyrian said:
Unfortunately, that quote is half-pulled straight from the movie. The, uh, 'immigrants' literally steal the station by re-writing its OS so that it's owned by them (or, well, everyone, it's not very clear), and the guy who did the re-writing goes "It belongs to everyone now."Pyrian said:
Also, if you want to go that far, no one has any rights at all, they're all just social conventions we came up with so we could function and which we ignore when it's convenient, with rules in place to minimize the definition of 'convenient' as much as possible. Sure, it's not perfect, it doesn't always work, but it works MOST of the time.
Generally, though, storming another country and taking/destroying all its cool shit because you *need* it, is a dick move. I didn't like it when the humans did it in the Animatrix (and they had a somewhat better reason, namely that the machine city was single-handedly wrecking the global economy), and I didn't like it when the rebels in Elysium did it.
To be perfectly honest, I could live with that, but the movie wanted me to like the rebels and root for them, when they were being dishonest dickholes. If they had just gone "listen, we're not going to pretend we're the good guys, let's just storm the station and steal all their goodies" I probably would've loved it. It's not exactly all the stealing and murdering itself that bothered me, as much as the insistence that the rebels were the good guys and the richies had it coming, when everyone involved was just a selfish asshole (or maybe that was, in fact, the actual point of the movie).Vault101 said:
Well yes, curb it. Earth in Elysium was probably way past the point where curbing population growth would've helped much.
Also, the robots didn't do all the work because then there would've been no movie.
Everyone gets the same rations! Or do you doubt the Party's dedication to the People?Haerthan said:
You mean, the incredibly subtle subtext that highlighted the underlying metaphoric theme of ... nah, I think you were right the first time.Jack T. Pumpkin said: