"What % Gets Stealth?"

[Godspeed]

Man, and I thought they both looked like decent flicks on their previews. I think some of you forget that movies are more about entertainment than "reality."

I think most people find the MOST entertaining movies, the ones that they can relate to, or "see" happening, or are SO abstract (sci-fi, etc) that they don't need to relate to. Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Gladiator, The Hunt For the Red October, Red Dawn, blah blah blah... IMO are all entertaining movies because they contain at least a somewhat realistic and believable plot. Slapstick comedies are obviously an exception.

I think Behind Enemy Lines is a perfect example of a movie that could've been good, but was tainted by unrealism (Fleet Admirals flying helo rescue missions, escaping minefields by running fast than they can blow up, spinning ejection seats colliding in mid air, Intel rooms in carriers tapping in to gov't spy satellites, and other random BS).

When I watch a movie, it doesn't have to be 100% realistic. But the more realistic it is (for me anyways), the more believable it becomes, and the more you can relate with the characters. Stupid tangent, but figured i'd throw it out there anyway.

 

[Banjo33]

Matrix, Star Wars (pick an episode), Lord of the Rings, Batman, Total Recall, my current favorite: Pirates of the Carribean...all highly unrealistic but most pretty entertaining. Why would anyone go into "Stealth" expecting to see a realistic movie? Especially one based in the future.

Can't help the plot or crappy dialogue though. I can live with and be content with unrealistic, but bad acting is bad acting.

 

[Fly Navy]

Matrix, Star Wars (pick an episode), Lord of the Rings, Batman, Total Recall, my current favorite: Pirates of the Carribean...all highly unrealistic but most pretty entertaining. Why would anyone go into "Stealth" expecting to see a realistic movie? Especially one based in the future.

Can't help the plot or crappy dialogue though. I can live with and be content with unrealistic, but bad acting is bad acting.

I'll agree with that. There are a few kinds of unrealistic too. There is the "well, that's just not how we do things, or how it would happen" and the classic suspension of disbelief you have to do for Sci-Fi and Fantasy. That's fine. But then there is utterly ridiculous. For example, The Core. If you've ever seen this movie you know what I'm talking about. Good lord. Good Sci-Fi uses actual scientific principles to make a story. This movie just threw science out the window, shoved its hand up its a@@, and pulled out a piece of crap plot with crappy acting.

 

[Godspeed]

Matrix, Star Wars (pick an episode), Lord of the Rings, Batman, Total Recall, my current favorite: Pirates of the Carribean...all highly unrealistic but most pretty entertaining.

Yeah, as I said, those are sci fi or fantasy movies. Examples of good movies that aren't trying to be realistic, but rely on some believable story board. Stealth is an example of a movie that is trying to be realistic. The day after tommorow is a PERFECT example of a movie trying to be realistic, but failing miserably.

 

[Cate]

People who don't know as much about the military probably have fewer problems with movies like Behind Enemy Lines or Stealth because the mistakes that would interfere with their reasonable suspension of disbelief just don't register to them. My dad is a doctor, and while he loved ER he could never watch Chicago Hope without shouting at the TV. "That's how they do a thorocotomy? What are they looking at, the liver?!"

Sometimes it's actually easier to watch a sci-fi or fantasy film because you're already prepared to suspend more disbelief than usual. As long as the movie has some grounding in reality, it's easy to be entertained. We've all been in a seedy bar with seedy characters before, so it's easy to take that experience, add aliens, and slip right into the Star Wars cantina without question.

 

[Jolly Roger]

Have you ever seen any other movies to compare this with? If you haven't (or were homeschooled) then I guess it's ok. Otherwise....yeah, it wasn't so hot. Steve tried to do too much and failed at the majority of it. Especially the end...those of you who have seen it know what I'm talking about. I don't want to spoil the movie for anybody who has yet to see it (god knows why you would) but if you'd like to discuss why this movie was somewhere between watching paint dry and slowly bleeding to death, PM me.

Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just really sour that I spent money on that film. I feel tricked and humiliated. I'm very curious as to what you feel made it a reasonable film.

Okay, here is the thing with ending. I loved the movie, but the last 20 minutes could have been a helluvalot better. I mean the whole movie, up until when they Olgilvy's house felt like a nightmare, then the mood changed. However, I will say this: what happened to the aliens is straight out of the book. It is just what happens with the family that seemed really out of place and made the ending seem wrong.

There where so many elements from the book and not the 1950s movie. Like Olgilvy and the house, right of the book. Even some of the dialog that Olgilvy had was out of the book. How they fed was out of the book. There are just so many elements that he brought out of the book that did justice to the book, unlike the '50s movie.

Just my $.02.

 

[Fly Navy]

Here is a new one for the peanut gallery:

Actor Tom Cruise (search) might not have known it, but in his new movie "War of the Worlds" he's playing someone that the film's screenwriter thinks represents the Iraqi insurgents. Screenwriter David Koepp (search), quoted by the Canadian magazine Rue Morgue, said, "…the Martians [in the movie] ... represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land is again the subtext." And, in an interview with USA Weekend, Koepp said, "You can read our movie several ways. It could be 9/11 paranoia. Or it could be about how U.S. military interventionism abroad is doomed by insurgency, just the way an alien invasion might be."

So, does this fvck-stick know that this story was written decades ago? I hate a$$holes like this.

 

[Ryoukai]

^ Look, you're just tainted by the lies of the government! EVERYTHING relates to Iraq, even things written long before anybody cared where Iraq was. Duh. :icon_mi_1 :icon_wink

 

[Brett327]

Here is a new one for the peanut gallery:



So, does this fvck-stick know that this story was written decades ago? I hate a$$holes like this.

It was similar to what happened w/ the latest Star Wars where the media was saying it was a comentary on Bush and the GWOT. Idiots! Lucas wrote all the episodes (maybe 12 in all?) back in the 60s/70s.

Brett

 

[gregsivers]

For example, The Core. If you've ever seen this movie you know what I'm talking about. Good lord. Good Sci-Fi uses actual scientific principles to make a story. This movie just threw science out the window, shoved its hand up its a@@, and pulled out a piece of crap plot with crappy acting.

Oh come on, I liked The Core. Honestly what was wrong with it?

 

[doubledeuce]

Oh come on, I liked The Core. Honestly what was wrong with it?

What was The Core on AFI's 100? Something like 46 I think...way underrated.

 

[highlyrandom]

Not only before anyone cared where Iraq was...1898, more than twenty years before Sumerian "Uruk" (or "Erech" from Genesis, araqa from Arabic) even took on the modern name...so yeah, the deconstructionists are at it again. Sort of like the guy who made Starship Troopers into a movie about his own past hating the Nazis, claiming "I didn't read the book, I thought it would get in the way of my creative process." Er, no. Any hits on the creepy tripod sound, on that note?

Jessica Biel is my forms partner

 

[Fly Navy]

Speaking of Starship Troopers, GREAT book. Some very interesting political philosophy in there.

 

[Jolly Roger]

Actor Tom Cruise (search) might not have known it, but in his new movie "War of the Worlds" he's playing someone that the film's screenwriter thinks represents the Iraqi insurgents. Screenwriter David Koepp (search), quoted by the Canadian magazine Rue Morgue, said, "…the Martians [in the movie] ... represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land is again the subtext." And, in an interview with USA Weekend, Koepp said, "You can read our movie several ways. It could be 9/11 paranoia. Or it could be about how U.S. military interventionism abroad is doomed by insurgency, just the way an alien invasion might be."

Tool!

So, does this fvck-stick know that this story was written decades ago? I hate a$$holes like this.

War of the Worlds was published 107 yrs ago! So, by his logic, it was really a commentary on the run-up to the Spanish-American War? What a hella-tool! Are we exterminating and drinking the Iraqis' blood?! I think I missed that somewhere. I sure hope H.G. Welles' estate says something to say, but I would suppose that would be naive of me to think that.

 

[Jolly Roger]

I'll agree with that. There are a few kinds of unrealistic too. There is the "well, that's just not how we do things, or how it would happen" and the classic suspension of disbelief you have to do for Sci-Fi and Fantasy. That's fine. But then there is utterly ridiculous. For example, The Core. If you've ever seen this movie you know what I'm talking about. Good lord. Good Sci-Fi uses actual scientific principles to make a story. This movie just threw science out the window, shoved its hand up its a@@, and pulled out a piece of crap plot with crappy acting.

Kind of like The Day after Tomorrow (aka Two Days From Now)?