Kaulen Fuhs said:
Dr Killpatient said:
More to the point, who the hell would want to watch a movie about drones fixing drones?
Someone who wants a movie to make sense? It's not like if one repair drone goes down, the entire takeover has to be scrapped because none of the others can repair it. Maybe there are reasons they use the humans, like they have all these leftovers from the invasion and might as well use 'em. But none of the explanations have room for "They need to use living organisms", at least none that the movie addresses, so it's all conjecture.
More to the point, I saw the movie for myself, wanted to like it, and didn't. Bob isn't totally out of his gourd on this one. It's perfectly possible to think the movie is bad, you know?
Yes, it is. But not for the reasons Bob presents here.
The movie implies quite clearly that the machines are running short on droids. Victoria asks Tet multiple times to replace broken droids, and Tet tells her that they cannot afford to do that and they have to make do with what they have.
Are people's brains really shrunk to the size of a walnut from all the Internets, that they cannot presume that perhaps the Scavs with their actions and the war with humans has taken its toll on the Tet and has exhausted its supply of droids? Just because a movie doesn't address every fine detail to a perfection doesn't mean it is bad.
And what is this "please movie explain, because I can't think for myself" mentality crippling this generation?
Boy, am I glad you numbnuts don't have to watch movies like 2001 Space Odyssey and Blade Runner - I'd hate to see those hoards of drooling mugs coming out of the cinema and mumbling "Durrr, movie no make sense" to themselves.
sarkeizen said:
How about that big machine sitting in the sky. It came from somewhere. It traveled vast distances without people and all of a sudden human clones are vital to it's operation?
No, human clones are vital to maintaining the droids and reporting on Scav presense, while droids are there to protect the harvesters. If Earth was uninhabited or would lack species that could oppose them, Tet wouldn't need to use the clones or the droids.
Either humans are the better tool or they aren't. If humans are the better tool then there shouldn't be drones an army of humans already took over the planet. Tet was capable of maintaining that, so it's reasonable to believe that it would be able to maintain a smaller force. If humans aren't the right tool, then they shouldn't be there.
Well, clearly humans are not able to shoot bullets from their fingers the way those three battle droids tear up that Scav compound.
Conversely how are humans avoiding the Z-rays from man-in-the-moon marigolds? The fact that someone can rationalize something doesn't mean the plot is well thought out. If there is a reasonable question to be answered then the film should answer it. Period.
The fact that you cannot think for yourself and need the movie to explain every effing little detail makes me weep for the future of humankind.
It's not a very good definition. So I can't call a movie bad which because it's a documentary where the premise is Butz's "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century"? I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to call such a film bad without further qualification. Like I said earlier, the fact than you can dream up a reason why something might be possible doesn't mean the movie is well-thought out.
For me Oblivion was nicely designed, stupidly paced (how many times did we watch people walk around?!), ended badly and was poorly thought out.
Sure, you can call any movie bad if you like.
But if your reasons for a movie being bad is your inability to use those two brain cells your mommy and daddy gave you when they bumped uglies, just shows we have turned around and are now taking steps down on our evolutionary ladder.
